THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 29, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4:18 p.m. [ET] to consider Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council).
Senator Jane Cordy (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, I know that some people may be coming in late since the Senate adjourned a little bit later today, but that’s fine. We will start the meeting so that we can proceed with all the witnesses in the allotted time.
My name is Jane Cordy. I am a senator from Nova Scotia and the Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. I would like to begin by welcoming members of the committee and all the witnesses, as well as members of the public who are watching our proceedings today.
Welcome, also, this afternoon to Senator Ross — one of our new senators who is joining us.
Before we begin, I would like to do a round table and have all of the senators introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Senator Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec. Welcome.
Senator Bellemare: Senator Diane Bellemare from Quebec.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, Manitoba.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
Senator Osler: Gigi Osler, Manitoba.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, senator for Ontario.
Senator Ross: Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. The introductions are more for the people who are watching us on television and online because we are all very well acquainted with our first witness.
Today, we begin our consideration of Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council). Joining us for our first panel, we welcome the Honourable Senator Diane Bellemare, who is the proud sponsor of this bill. Thank you so much, Senator Bellemare, for joining us today. I will remind you that you have five minutes for your opening statement, which will be followed by questions from our members.
Senator Bellemare, the floor is yours.
Hon. Diane Bellemare, sponsor of the bill: Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Before I start, I just want to thank you for inviting me to appear today as part of the study of Bill S-244. I must admit that it’s the first time that I am on this side, and I am a bit nervous. I hope I will be able to answer your questions as short and sweet as possible.
[Translation]
Bill S-244 amends the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council). This bill is the result of a concerted effort by a number of national labour market stakeholders undertaken in 2019. The bill is also supported by the current commissioners of workers and employers, both of whom actively participated in the discussions leading to the development of this bill.
More specifically, the following organizations worked together, either in a hybridized manner or in person: the Canadian Labour Congress; the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, or FTQ; the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN; Unifor; Canada’s Building Trades Unions; the Canadian Chamber of Commerce; the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec; the Conseil du patronat du Québec; the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; and the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada. We had a great group of pan-Canadian labour market organizations.
What is the purpose of this bill? The main purpose of the bill is to strengthen social dialogue within the Canada Employment Insurance Commission by creating an advisory council to the current commission. That council will provide advice to the commission with a single voice. The current structure is based primarily on consultation, whereby a variety of viewpoints are heard. Whereas here, we want instead to establish an advisory council of management and labour, including businesses and workers, to give advice with a single voice.
This bill proposes to create, in federal legislation, a council to provide advice to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. It doesn’t change the powers of the commission — it doesn’t change the way it currently operates — it’s an addition. However, in the bill, we’ve also grouped the various mandates of the current commission under a single chapter. Right now, it’s all scattered throughout the legislation. We are adding that and creating the advisory council.
This new council would be co-chaired by commissioners for workers and employers. It would be made up of an equal number of worker and company representatives. It’s a 12-person advisory council: There would be two co-chairpersons, five members representing labour organizations and five members representing businesses.
This bill has no budgetary implications, since the commissioners are already there and the people involved are paid in their own role. This bill is really the fruit of an exercise in social dialogue among the current partners.
Concretely, what are the proposed changes? The Canada Employment Insurance Commission is currently made up of four members: the commission’s chairperson and vice-chairperson, who are respectively the department’s deputy minister and senior associate deputy minister, representing the government’s interests. The vice-chairperson has the right to vote only when the chairperson is absent. The other two members are the commissioner for workers and the commissioner for employers, whom you’ll hear from later today.
The commission is very small at the moment. The bill, as proposed, makes no changes to the composition of the commission, but creates a new council that formalizes the structure for social dialogue and consultation on the labour market.
There will also be observer members on this commission. Observer members —
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Yes, thank you, senator.
Senator Bellemare: I can answer questions now.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much for your remarks, Senator Bellemare. We’ll proceed to questions from senators. For today’s meeting, questions and answers will be three minutes altogether, so please keep your questions succinct. We were a little bit late starting, and we have a pretty strict timeline in terms of finishing up the meeting.
Senator Seidman: Thank you, Senator Bellemare, for being with us to explain this piece of legislation.
In your second-reading speech, you said that the commission failed in its role during the pandemic, and that was the inspiration for this piece of legislation. You said that this reform is needed, and the effectiveness of the changes will depend upon the stakeholders’ participation in defining and implementing these changes.
As you know, we like to measure effectiveness. How would you do that? How would you evaluate that effectiveness?
Senator Bellemare: It’s hard to have a statistical measure, but a lot of studies have been done on the international side, such as from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD. The International Labour Organization, or ILO, did a lot of studies on that. There are also academic studies that compared countries that have such boards with countries that do not.
In fact, what we’re proposing is aligned with the recommendation in the ILO Conventions. It’s hard to measure the efficiency of it, but when you apply it and do it, it favours consensus, the determination of policies that are accepted on both sides and the implementation of those policies.
I did a lot of studies on the subject in a book that I wrote a long time ago. I visited countries that do have those kinds of boards: Sweden, Norway, Germany and Austria. I was accompanied by an employer, a union person and a government person. Everyone could see how important it is to have these kinds of boards.
Senator Seidman: How do these countries measure the impacts of having this kind of council, or have they?
Senator Bellemare: They measure it by wanting to go along with it again. It goes on in time. It’s not something that you can measure. You don’t measure the success of negotiations. They work.
Senator Seidman: Okay.
Senator Bellemare: They work. There are no statistics.
But I can say that, on the data side, you can find that the countries that do have such boards have a lot of positive outcomes in terms of productivity, training, low unemployment and so forth.
Senator Osler: Thank you, Senator Bellemare, for your testimony.
My question is on the composition of the council. The bill provides some guidelines on the composition of the council, including five individuals from the most representative labour organizations and five individuals from the most representative employer organizations. If the composition is determined based upon the number of members in an organization, how can we ensure diversity among representatives encompassing, for example, various sectors, regions, races, ethnicities, languages, sexes and ages, while preventing the oversight of voices from organizations that are smaller in number?
Senator Bellemare: That is a good question.
[Translation]
In a previous life, I was president of the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, which still exists in Quebec, and is made up of 18 people. There are business representatives for six of the labour representatives and institutional representatives. In our organization, as elected officials sit on the board, diversity is expressed through the choice of voters, the workforce that organizes the elections, and the choice of companies.
However, in the case of the board of commissioners, there were and still are groups, advisory committees to this committee, made up, for example, of the immigrant committee, the youth committee, the women’s committee, the committee of people with disabilities, and so on. So, in Quebec, there is this kind of representation for groups on the committee or council.
In the case of the advisory council here, the bill provides for the possibility of inviting group representatives to be heard during deliberations. So, since it’s elected members who sit on the council, and since diversity — be it regional or otherwise — is associated with the possibility of having observer representatives, the bill provides for two types of observer representatives. There will be representatives from the regions, proposed by the Forum of Labour Market Ministers — and this is where we also see the possibility of having representatives from Indigenous groups, as it’s territorial. The bill also provides for representatives from other categories.
Senator Mégie: This is timely, as my question was asked by Senator Osler.
However, I’m missing something. I’d like to know if, when it’s time to meet, all those people will take language into account. For example, is everything going to be in English even if there are a few francophones in the group?
Has this also been planned for as an element of linguistic diversity?
Senator Bellemare: I can’t answer that, but I imagine that, since these are Canadian offices subject to the Official Languages Act, access to interpretation will be a possibility, like here in the Senate. I haven’t asked myself that question because we experience it here, so I expect that to be the case at those meetings, too.
Senator Mégie: Thank you. Okay.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Thank you and welcome. I’m intrigued by clause 3 of your bill which talks about replacing section 25(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act, where you — I presume it’s you — are adding to section 25(1) so that it would read:
The Commission may make rules respecting the calling of meetings of the Commission and generally respecting the conduct of its business or for the purpose of limiting the questions on which the Council may provide advice and make recommendations to the Commission.
You’re really building fences around this new council. Could you help me understand why you want to do that?
Senator Bellemare: We want this bill to pass. We want the deputy minister to be unafraid of the bill; that’s why we said the commission would limit, because the advisory council could take initiative.
We want the advisory council to be able to take initiative for the studies they do, as well as take initiative to say what they have to say in public, but, at the same time, to counterbalance. The commission, including the two chairs of the advisory committee, would have some rules about what’s possible and what’s not.
That was the kind of thing that we were looking for, and this is the legal writing of this proposition. This is what it means. I know it’s really obscure.
Senator McPhedran: Actually, I don’t think it’s obscure at all.
Senator Bellemare: No? Okay.
Senator McPhedran: My reading of this is that the commission can basically tell the council to shut up and not bother them.
Senator Bellemare: Yes, but don’t forget that the commission is composed of the three chairs — the advisory committee is chaired by two of the four commissioners.
Senator McPhedran: That’s where you see the balance?
Senator Bellemare: That’s right. It is with respect to the deputy minister.
Senator McPhedran: I hope you’re right.
Senator Bellemare: You can ask the commissioner.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: Senator Bellemare, I want to ask more about Canada’s experience in this area. Are there other areas where embedding social dialogue within institutions has been successful? What is the federal government’s experience with this?
If it’s not commonplace at the federal level, what held us back from going in this direction? What problems might we run into at the federal level?
Senator Bellemare: That’s a very good question. It’s a question that I have been asking myself for a long, long time. In the history of Employment Insurance, or EI, unemployment insurance was enacted in 1940 as a tripartite agency. It was run by government, representatives of unions and representatives of employers. For a long time, it was a stand-alone agency. Then, it became covered by the department.
There was restructuring over time, and, through time, this agency lost its autonomy. It became part of the department. It had a commission that was bigger than it is now. It lost power through time.
The best perspective on that was written by Donna Wood, an expert of public policy. She unfortunately died during the time of COVID. She explained how the logic of the administration of EI succeeded in taking it out of the partners. This is what happened with EI.
However, international conventions that Canada has signed explicitly state that for EI and employment policy-related activities, partners of the labour market should be part of it because they are part of the solution.
To solve problems in the labour market, it’s not through the knowledge of statistics alone; it’s in the knowledge of what it is doing.
EI is included in this strategic thinking of human resource management and enterprises. It is also included, sometimes, in the professional mobility items or policies that can incentivize people to learn or not to learn, or to go to the labour market.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Sorry to be the grinch here.
Senator Burey: Thank you, Senator Bellemare.
I will come back to something that Senator Seidman and Senator Osler spoke about regarding both the data and the diversity aspect of it. As you were just explaining, in the labour market, social dialogue is so important in order to achieve those human resource aims.
In particular, looking at under-represented groups whose wages lag behind and whose unemployment rate is significantly higher than the population, will this council do anything to change that? How can we capture that data? I know that you mentioned before that it’s hard to capture data, but if there is engagement — a social dialogue, as you are proposing — would the council do anything to improve the unemployment rates of under-represented groups?
Senator Bellemare: It is certain that the objective of having social partners involved in public policy design and implementation, like EI, can have a positive effect on integration, diversity and so forth.
There are also other policies involved, but the advisory council is focused — at the moment — on EI. It can help, of course, with having a lens and seeing what’s happening with what we call labour market agreements in the provinces. All of those issues are locally experienced. They are not experienced at the national level; they have experiences in regions and cities all throughout Canada. They are financed by labour market agreements. Actually, one of the commission’s mandates is to look at those labour market agreements so that they can have a say in the programs for diversity through that lens.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much, Senator Bellemare. It’s a pleasure to have you on the committee. My question is quite broad. I’m trying to understand what the balance of power, if any, or strength will be with this employment insurance council, which will give advice and make recommendations. Is it binding? I don’t think so. If these recommendations and advice are not followed by the commission, for example, what happens?
Senator Bellemare: First, I can tell you that there’s an oversight in the bill. I’ll make an amendment to it when we study it because there was a small tooth in the bill that added an obligation for the commission to meet with the advisory council at least three times a year. There was an obligation to meet. It was lost in translation.
When we realized that, it was too late. So I’m going to add this amendment to the bill. Of course, it doesn’t have a lot of teeth, so we’re relying on good faith. But when labour market partners on both sides meet, trust each other and come up with a joint project, the political strength is there. This also ensures continuity in public policy. Never forget that the logic of the labour market partners, the companies and the workforce is always the same; it’s not a political party logic. This helps achieve continuity.
It’s certain that here, we want to do that because the employment insurance program, as we know, even in terms of administration, is still archaic when it comes to benefit delivery. If we have an advisory council, it will conduct studies, it will name things, and by mutual agreement, there will be recommendations. Weight will be added to usage, in the long run, when trust has also been established between the two groups.
For now, this bill is the fruit of that dialogue because we’ve worked on several projects — I’ve submitted several projects. We started working on this project in 2019, and we submitted it in 2022. We’ve had a number of meetings. For the moment, our objective is mainly training.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Thank you, Senator Bellemare. My question is quite short. It is related in some ways to Senator Petitclerc’s question.
At the beginning of your remarks, you mentioned there would be five labour representatives and five business representatives, and they would speak with one voice — that’s the terminology you used. In my experience, labour and business speak with different voices. How do you envision they will cooperate given their different interests? Obviously, they are represented on the council together, and you mentioned just a few minutes ago that they would make recommendations and so on for the commission. How do you envision they will speak with one voice, or not?
Senator Bellemare: I experienced this when I chaired the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail. I can tell you that when the minister came to see the commission, she was listening because we were speaking with one voice.
To give you an example, when I was appointed to chair that group — it had been created previously, but this was in relation to training — one of our tasks was to write the regulations on training programs, and we did so in one voice. It takes time, but the beauty of it is when employers and employees agree on the program, then it’s really easy to implement because you have the social adherence that is so necessary in public policy.
Do you know why it was possible? Because even though they may be on opposite sides in the negotiation of wages, they always have the same objectives, which are to have a job, to stay in business, to make a profit, to be productive, to increase wages and to be inclusive. There’s common ground for these kinds of objectives. There’s always a common solution, and it is important to find it.
Consultation exacerbates extreme positions. When you’re consulted, you will say what you think for your own interests. It’s very hard to then find the common point. But when people sit together, they have an obligation to reach a result, so they find the common ground. This is why it works.
Senator Ross: Thank you very much. I didn’t really have a question prepared, but I know that you had a lot of people reaching out from various business groups. Where are the labour groups on this?
Senator Bellemare: They are in favour of this. We now have a colleague, Senator Yussuff, who was once part of the design of this bill. He was the president of the Canadian Labour Congress at that time, and I was working with his office. He was also part of the meetings. Labour is great with this.
Senator Ross: Okay, so labour is on board and business groups are on board?
Senator Bellemare: Exactly.
Senator Ross: How about the commission?
Senator Bellemare: They are on board too.
Senator Ross: Excellent. Thank you.
Senator Bellemare: I started with the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce — Hassan Yussuff and Perrin Beatty. Both of them designated with whom I could contact all the time. Then, we had big meetings with all of those people that I mentioned, and it changed from the first draft to this draft.
We were all concerned about diversity and so forth. That’s why we said that in order to do that, we will have people who can come as observers. The commission could reach out to have people come on different subjects. It’s written in the law, so they can do that. The deputy minister can’t say that they don’t want that to happen.
They could also invite those designated by the ministers of labour.
There are two groups — regions and diversity — possible through this bill.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Greenwood: I think you may have answered this question, but I will ask you anyway: Can you please tell us what you mean by “social dialogue”? I’ve heard you talk about it, but what does that mean? How would this proposed council help promote social dialogue?
Senator Bellemare: Thank you for the question. I understand that it’s not very easy to comprehend, especially when we get out of a session, as we do, day after day, with no social dialogue in the chamber.
Social dialogue starts with being with another group, exchanging information about the needs and negotiating with somebody about a policy that aims for the same objectives. Let’s say the purpose is to increase training of lower-skilled people in the provinces. Then, you negotiate between employers and employees who both want to do that. How do we do that? Will they be paid while acquiring skills? Will they acquire skills on work time? Will they acquire skills through EI? What kind of program will it be?
As long as the objective is there, then you find the common ground. EI is a program that has been federal since we changed the Constitution. Otherwise, it would have been provincial. It’s a federal program with $27 billion a year. It’s a big program, and there are more possibilities to acquire skills through EI, but one of the purposes of doing that is trying to promote training within EI so that the program will be more efficient.
There’s a lot, but social dialogue is a process where people agree on the objectives. I understand your question because, in Canada, it’s the responsibility of the federal government to promote social dialogue, because it is a tool for policy. In Canada, we don’t see that as an instrument, but it is an instrument of public policy.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of our first panel. It was very productive. Thank you for all of the information. Thank you very much, Senator Bellemare, for all of your time and testimony.
Joining us today for our second panel, we welcome, in person, from the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, Nancy Healey, Commissioner for Employers; and Pierre Laliberté, Commissioner for Workers. Welcome to you both, and thank you for appearing before us on this bill.
I want to remind you that you each have five minutes for opening remarks. We really have to stick closely to that, because we’ve got a lot of people who ask very interesting questions.
We will begin with you, Ms. Healey.
Nancy Healey, Commissioner for Employers, Canada Employment Insurance Commission: Thank you very much, and thank you for the opportunity to appear in support of Bill S-244.
As the Commissioner for Employers, I’m an independent advocate for employers within the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. I regularly meet with employer groups, from the smallest boards of trade and chambers of commerce to the national industry associations like Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters and the Business Council of Canada.
I regularly travel across the country to meet one-on-one with private sector employers in order to better understand their pain points and concerns, and I bring these concerns to the department in hopes of securing changes that will improve their ability to do business, to hire more people and to retrain or upskill.
I support Bill S-244. I see it as an opportunity to amplify the voice of business, particularly small businesses, and to encourage meaningful engagement within the commission. Bill S-244 would provide a forum for both employer groups and labour groups to discuss issues of mutual concern around employment, workforce development, jobs and skills.
Employers are one of the primary contributors to the EI program. They pay 1.4 times that of workers, yet they often feel like they are left on the sidelines, especially small businesses, which are the largest job creators in the country. Small businesses represent 80% of all businesses. Many of those businesses are micro-businesses with fewer than 10 employees. They are having a particularly difficult time right now addressing labour shortages. In fact, today the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, came out with a study on the difficulties that small businesses are having with labour shortages; how much business they have turned away; how much of an impact it’s having on the employees who are there; and how much more time they have to work.
The small businesses don’t have a voice at the table where decisions are being made about labour market development agreements or workforce solutions. The EI council, with representation from groups like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business or the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, will help to ensure that the interests of these small employers are heard.
I want to bring the voice of small businesses to this table.
I have participated in a strategic partnership of business, labour and government in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was a tripartite consultative process, largely based on a system from Ireland. We know that many countries in Europe have advanced tripartite discussions. Senator Bellemare mentioned the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail from Quebec, which has already demonstrated how employer and labour groups can work together to develop policy and make recommendations.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, the strategic partnership operated for close to 10 years. There were several subcommittees on various topics, but the best committee that we had was our labour market committee. There were lots of areas of consensus and lots of areas that we could work on, whether it was population growth, immigration or training. Although many of us knew that the aging demographic train was coming our way, they recognized it very early on — and I’m going back 15 years ago — and advocated for policy changes.
Social dialogue provides a forum for primary stakeholders to have their perspectives heard. Both sides get the opportunity to hear from each other, which can result in greater understanding and even empathy for the other positions. It results in better decision making, greater understanding and hopefully consensus.
Canada is a signatory to the Global Deal, an initiative of the OECD, which aspires to an ambitious approach to decent work and increased productivity. The Global Deal brings together key actors in the labour market to promote joint solutions that deliver positive results for workers, businesses and society at large.
As the Global Deal website states:
Effective social dialogue requires mutual respect and trust to create favourable conditions for collaboration. This can lead to peace in the labour market, promote competition and enhance economic stability and shared prosperity. The Global Deal thus offers a win-win-win opportunity for all stakeholders.
The EI council of employers and workers is a step toward fulfilling our commitment to the Global Deal. I commend Senator Bellemare for her initiative and leadership on this matter. She has engaged with both the commissioners and our various stakeholders, as she has mentioned, in the preparation of this bill. I encourage the Senate to pass Bill S-244. I look forward to the establishment of the EI council.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Healey, for your remarks.
Mr. Laliberté, the floor is yours.
[Translation]
Pierre Laliberté, Commissioner for Workers, Canada Employment Insurance Commission: Good afternoon and thank you for the invitation.
I’ll approach this from another point of view. I’ve been a commissioner representing workers on the Canada Employment Insurance Commission since 2016. Before that, I had the opportunity to work for some 20 years for the labour movement in Canada and Quebec, in particular. I also worked at the International Labour Organization for almost six years before being appointed to the commission.
I’ve seen the notions of social dialogue and tripartism at work. In fact, I came away with the conviction that in Canada, we have under-invested in these public policy instruments, as Senator Bellemare pointed out. It should be noted that the commission is virtually one of the only tripartite organizations within the Canadian government.
I would tell you that, in practice, tripartism or social dialogue exists, but there may not be enough of it. In my opinion, there isn’t enough of it. We have the form of tripartism, but in practice, it’s only weakly manifested. I can give you a few examples, but I think I’ll leave you to ask questions on the subject.
I also completely agree that the bill should be supported by the Senate and eventually by the House of Commons. In my opinion, this bill fills a certain gap, and I think I can already start to address it. In the setting of public policy — for example, in vocational training — since 2016, since I’ve been commissioner, I’ve seen a lot of government initiatives that have unfortunately not been subject to broad and ongoing discussions with social partners. In my view, certain initiatives were presented prematurely to the Canadian Parliament, some of which didn’t even come to fruition.
Every time, I noticed, on the side of workers and labour organizations, as well as employer organizations, the disappointment of seeing that we were presented with ready-made solutions that had not been discussed in depth at all. Earlier, reference was made to the notion of efficiency. This is where social dialogue can lead to efficiency. It’s about having measures for which we won’t need to go back to the garage to re-equip ourselves as soon as they’re presented.
In my opinion, we are underutilizing the knowledge and skills of social stakeholders. Bill S-244, which provides for the creation of an advisory committee, helps us, without changing the world, to further formalize this process by having accountability.
It should also be pointed out that employment insurance is not a minor program in this respect. In vocational training, it should also be pointed out, the employment insurance fund is probably the source of funding for the largest number of programs that exist, even under provincial and territorial aegis in Canada.
There are deficiencies that need to be addressed, and I think we can do a lot better. This will help us do much better. Thank you.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you both for sticking to the time and for your excellent statements.
Senator Osler: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
In the bill’s preamble, post-pandemic adjustment was listed as a factor to generate major transformations in the labour market and require considerable adaptation on the part of employers and workers.
Some of the people most affected by the pandemic were hospitality workers, accommodation and food service workers, younger workers, non-essential retail workers and non-unionized workers. How will these people be taken into account if they are not represented by the most representative labour organizations or employer organizations?
Mr. Laliberté: The notion of the most representative organization is an important concept. Being representative means what it should mean. For instance, in Canada, the Canadian Labour Congress represents over 3 million workers, inclusive of people in the hospitality industry — not all of them, clearly, but certainly some of them. They have a duty, as a labour organization, to do their best to represent those interests. I can definitely tell you that during the pandemic, they did do that.
Those organizations are also reflective of the evolution of the Canadian workforce. You will have noticed that the past president of the Canadian Labour Congress is a racialized person. Now we have two out of the four officers who are as well.
The President of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec is Indigenous. In a sense, those organizations do have a duty to represent and, in fact, from their very democratic workings, get to embody what Canada is becoming.
That being said, in regard to what Senator Bellemare said earlier, when you’re dealing with any issue — and God knows, there are many issues — you need to bring the people who are first affected to the table to hear from them.
I know that those representative bodies do, because they know that if they get out of step with their members in a specific sector, they are going to hear about it. There is an accountability relationship there that is very important.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I have a question for Mr. Laliberté.
Of course, I’d be happy to hear what you both have to say, if you have time to answer in three minutes.
I’m trying to understand the potential consequences of this bill. I don’t want to force you to give us examples, but you said you had lots of examples to give of situations where ready-made solutions have sometimes been proposed instead of engaging in real dialogue.
Briefly, would you be able to illustrate this concept with concrete examples? That would help me understand what kind of impact this change could have.
Mr. Laliberté: I’ll start and my colleague can continue.
Briefly, I have lots of examples to give you. For example, part II of the employment benefits program has a budget of $2.5 billion. Since I’ve been commissioner, the definition of who can use these funds has changed four times. We have never been asked to give our opinion on that. If we weren’t asked, you can imagine that employer and worker groups weren’t asked.
It’s about employer and worker contributions being used, supposedly for good causes, but at the same time changing the parameters without really thinking it would be important to have a discussion. Maybe it’s a good idea, but the issue lies in the method, you see.
Another example I could give is that the government announced in 2019 a training allowance, the Canada training benefit, which never saw the light of day, which was never implemented and which was supposed to provide a week of benefits for people who choose to take training leave.
When it came out, no one had suggested that or discussed it beforehand. So Minister Hajdu, who had been put in a strange position at the time, asked for consultations after the fact. That’s what social dialogue is for. I’ll pass you the puck.
[English]
Ms. Healey: I don’t expect or anticipate that every decision will come to this group. In some regards, we need to stick to areas where we can find consensus and have success, but there are areas where there is great interest.
What really encourages me is that the employer groups and worker groups collaborated in the development of this bill. They want to be part of that discussion because, as Senator Bellemare pointed out, they are the ones who are very much engaged with human resources, upskilling and increasing productivity.
Again, I think we need to focus on the areas where we’re going to be. I do think that will bring about stronger policies that groups will be behind and will be supportive of, making for easier implementation.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: My understanding is that the dynamic is being changed a little, maximizing this social dialogue. Is it possible to think that efficiency is also being maximized?
[English]
Ms. Healey: Yes, right now, I would suggest the balance of decision making lies within government, even though this is a tripartite group, and we would like to enhance the voice of both employers and workers in the decisions around these really critical issues.
Senator Dasko: My question has just been made a little more relevant by what you just said. Obviously, workers and employers are already represented in the commission — you do that. So what is the added value of this council? Senator Petitclerc mentioned efficiency in terms of dialogue and lots of important values. How would you answer that question?
Mr. Laliberté: If you have Perrin Beatty or the President of the Canadian Labour Congress at the table, it’s not the same dynamic as if — I don’t want to be immodest here — we are there. We have been nominated into these positions because we have the confidence and trust, yet having the very people who are the representatives of these two constituencies around the table changes the dynamic entirely. It adds political weight, as was said in the previous session. Suddenly, it’s no longer Pierre Laliberté and Nancy Healey who are saying something; it’s people who are genuinely representative of stakeholders.
I do think that changes the dynamic, and it brings to the table not just the weight of these organizations, but also their collective knowledge and their networks, and that is invaluable. In our own way, we can try to do that ourselves, but it’s —
Ms. Healey: To build on that, it’s not just the weight of those organizations, and ensuring that you hear directly from those groups, but, hopefully, it’s the consensus amongst those groups. Here is a gift to government. You have both main stakeholder groups saying, “This is what we would like to have done.” Here it is on a silver platter. Here’s the policy that you should implement. You’re not going to have pushback. You have agreement on this.
As I said in my remarks, certainly trust is critically important and takes a long time to develop. Ultimately, the strategic partnership in Newfoundland and Labrador fell apart because of lack of trust. I remember one quick example: We had a meeting of all the employer and labour groups, and government officials came in and said, “We’re going to change the apprenticeship rules.” They went through a presentation — a slide deck — and the next day, they announced it, and they said that they consulted. Well, it wasn’t a consultation. That was definitely something that both employer and labour groups would have had a great ability to come to a consensus on as to what the changes should be.
Senator Dasko: That’s actually a power imbalance against government. That’s the way you see it?
Ms. Healey: I think we’re all in this together.
Senator Dasko: You raised the level of the voices and the power to speak to government. That’s what I would take from your example.
Ms. Healey: That’s true, but it is tripartite. This has to be all three parties, and, right now, there is one party in this discussion that carries most of the weight. I want it to be equal is what I’m trying to say. There needs to be balance.
Senator Burey: In the preamble of the bill, it states that the concept of social dialogue is essential in order to obtain a balance between economic growth and social equity. I think that’s really important.
In terms of not just a seat at the table but also your part at the table now, can you expand on that and explain a little more regarding how this social dialogue will improve economic growth and social equity? That is very important for our society, policy development, et cetera. Can you speak a little bit on that?
Ms. Healey: Again, it comes down to better public policy-making, better consensus and better understanding and empathy for each other’s positions and stakes in the relationship, and what is trying to be achieved.
I won’t tell you that it’s going to make it any shorter in the development of policy or direction, but it will result in better policy and, as I said, greater empathy, understanding and alignment in goals, which leads to all of these other improvements.
As Senator Bellemare pointed out, we know that in other countries that have mature social dialogue and tripartite discussions, you see higher productivity rates. We know Canada’s productivity is anaemic. We see higher wages and quite a number of other benefits there.
Mr. Laliberté: I would have to concur. There is sometimes a notion of shared sacrifice in the sense that, as was said, when there is consultation, each group represents their own set of interests. When you create the space for dialogue, then the mutual understanding that is developed and cultivated through time is important. This is the whole difference because then people can know where you’re starting from. They can appreciate what’s important to you, what’s not so important to you, where the areas of compromise might be, how we might affect some resources toward certain problems and how we might soften the edges of some measures to make it more palatable.
Ms. Healey: As Mr. Laliberté points out, when we do consultation, employer groups will come in with their most hardened position, and labour groups will come in with theirs. Then, we leave it up to government to make the decision for us. We don’t want to do that anymore. We want to share in that. I think that will come up with a better decision. That’s where we’re making government the referee now.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you both very much. This was a very interesting panel. Thank you for your perspectives, which aligned — I must tell you that doesn’t always happen. It has been a delight having you here today. Thank you for your time. Although you presented for five minutes, it doesn’t take five minutes to plan what you are going to say, so I can appreciate that.
Joining us today for our third panel, we welcome, in person, Erin Harrison, National Representative with the Research Department at Unifor; and, by video conference, we welcome Bea Bruske, President of the Canadian Labour Congress. Thank you both very much for joining us today.
I remind witnesses that you each have four minutes allocated for opening statements, which will be followed by questions from our members. Colleagues, it would be helpful if your question is directed to a particular witness, or if there is a particular witness that you would like to answer first. We will begin with Ms. Harrison.
Erin Harrison, National Representative, Research Department, Unifor: Hello. Thank you, everyone, for this invitation. Good afternoon, chair and honourable senators. On behalf of National President Lana Payne, I want to extend our sincere appreciation for the invitation to speak with you today on behalf of our union, Unifor.
Unifor is Canada’s largest union in the private sector, representing 315,000 workers nationwide in virtually every major sector of the economy. We have 29 sectors in total, 696 local unions and 2,883 bargaining units. Unifor is dedicated to the issue of EI reform, as it concerns all working people, and particularly affects Unifor members working in fisheries and seasonal workers, among others, which I will speak to later in my remarks.
Unifor has long advocated for permanent improvements to Canada’s Employment Insurance program — improvements that became all the more necessary following the COVID pandemic. Recently, in June 2021, our union released a special policy paper entitled Securing an Inclusive, Equitable and Resilient Employment Insurance Program for Workers in Canada. In this paper, our union called upon the federal government to make significant changes to the EI program, and outlined concrete recommendations aimed at expanding eligibility and improving benefits and program administration. Unifor is supportive of Bill S-244, as it directionally delivers on one of Unifor’s administrative policy recommendations that aims to “Renew support for tripartite dialogue between unions, employers and government on matters of EI and labour market transitional supports.”
Unifor has served as a stakeholder participant in the development and dialogue pertaining to Bill S-244, with thanks to the author and sponsor, Senator Diane Bellemare. Our union attended various meetings organized by the senator and is proud to be collaborative around this process.
With employers and workers being the sole contributors to Employment Insurance since 1990, Bill S-244 sets to renew the voice of these parties to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission through a newly formed council structure. The involvement of both commissioners tasked with appointing members of the council from both labour organizations and employer organizations is key to Unifor’s support of such a structure.
Unifor believes that effective employment policies require the involvement of a broad range of non-governmental actors. This would allow for better collaboration among all parties, including helping to identify changing labour market conditions and skills gaps, and responding better to emerging workforce needs.
The pandemic highlighted significant gaps in the EI program. Millions of Canadians lost their jobs and were not eligible for EI, despite paying into it for the duration of their work lives. Today, significant gaps and inefficiencies remain. Unifor continues to be front and centre in assisting our membership on transitional supports for workers facing job dislocations. Unifor has participated in every single consultation related to Employment Insurance that has been held by the federal government. However, there has been a lack of action and delivery on commitments to modernize and improve EI for workers after the lessons learned from the pandemic, especially for those faced with climate-related and sustainability-related job restructuring in the resources/forestry sector and auto sector, including those facing the transformational shift to electric vehicles today.
A voice at the table would amplify the situations faced by these workers and bring their perspectives to the forefront of national decision makers, and increase tripartite dialogue on important issues like labour market development agreements or workforce development agreements.
Unifor wholeheartedly supports the creation of such a tripartite entity to increase social dialogue between the stakeholders. We, once again, commend Senator Bellemare for the tabling of Bill S-244.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Harrison. Ms. Bruske, the floor is yours.
Bea Bruske, President, Canadian Labour Congress: Greetings, chair and honourable senators.
The Canadian Labour Congress brings together 3 million workers in nearly every sector, industry, occupation and region across Canada. We advocate on national issues on behalf of all workers across the country, and we are strongly in support of Bill S-244. We are proud to have played a role in its development, and I want to really commend the author and sponsor of the bill, Senator Diane Bellemare, for bringing it forward. Like the Canadian Labour Congress, Senator Bellemare is a passionate and tireless champion of social dialogue, and we believe that — now more than ever — Canada needs tripartite machinery and institutionalized social dialogue to promote skills training, vocational education and training, apprenticeships and continuous learning.
Canada’s economy is currently undergoing a dual transition. On the one hand, we’re transforming our industrial structure and its built environment in order to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century. This transition will continue to require significant investments in labour adjustment; upskilling and re-skilling pathways; and labour market support for workers.
On the other hand, Canada is experiencing a digitalization of work in almost every sector, industry and occupation. The rapid development and adoption of artificial intelligence, together with the increasing digitalization of work, is challenging our supply of digital skills, numeracy and other essential skills.
In order to achieve efficiency, productivity and equity, both the environmental transition and the digitalization of work will require significant investments in vocational education and training, as well as in labour adjustment and new job creation. Currently, the federal government invests approximately $3 billion annually in Canada’s labour market development agreements and workforce development agreements with the provinces and territories. Most of this funding is channelled through the labour market development agreements under the Employment Insurance Act.
Despite the importance of skills development and labour market programming for our economic future, Canada’s complex ecosystem of training programs is often confusing and daunting for workers to navigate, as well as for employers and even for some training providers. We believe that Bill S-244 will provide a mechanism for training partners, funders and end-users to improve the coherence, the effectiveness and the reach of Canada’s training ecosystem.
Outside of Quebec, Canada has relatively little in the way of ongoing, institutionalized social dialogue between unions and employers on the issue of skills development, and that means that there’s little institutionalized coordination happening currently, which we believe to be necessary to identify and address skills training needs.
To be sure, as part of the Sustainable Jobs Plan, the federal government has announced a tripartite-plus sustainable jobs partnership council, and that council will advise the government on effective measures to foster the creation of sustainable jobs and to provide support for workers and communities in the transition to a net-zero economy. We support that initiative. However, we believe that unions need to have a much greater voice on this body.
The federal government is also preparing to launch a union-led advisory table on skills training and workforce development issues, and we welcome that as well. However, we believe that Bill S-244 would establish a permanent tripartite dialogue at the heart of the EI program, and it’s through the EI program that much of the funds for training and labour market programming will flow. We, therefore, strongly support the opportunity for coordination, coherence and social dialogue that’s contained in this bill. I want to thank you very much, and I look forward to answering any questions that you may have.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Bruske, for your remarks. We’ll now proceed to questions from senators.
Senator Osler: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. My question is for both of you; perhaps I’ll ask Ms. Bruske to answer first, and then Ms. Harrison. As outlined in its mandate, the council may prepare reports relating to the work of the commission. In addition to that, would it be appropriate to consider a reporting requirement that evaluates the work and the effectiveness of the council?
Ms. Bruske: Determining the effectiveness of a council is always helpful for all stakeholders to be assured that their time is well spent, that the work is actually gaining traction and that we’re accomplishing what we set out to do.
In my experience, from the labour side, any time you get more than one side in the room, and you start having conversations, you start to find solutions, build on answers and find ways to collaborate. Even if you can’t necessarily find ways to collaborate, you do have an understanding of the other side’s position in a much more succinct way. Finding ways to measure that is not a bad thing, but building that understanding and comprehension is critical.
Ms. Harrison: Thank you for your question. It’s a great question.
I would agree, again, with the President of the Canadian Labour Congress that it’s not shocking that in the labour movement, we are structured organizations that believe in processes and accountability to our membership, so when we’re talking about reporting and being open and transparent to the bodies involved, it is something that labour could get behind.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you, Ms. Harrison, for being here with us in person. Thank you, President Bruske, for being with us online, and congratulations on the extension of your mandate and ongoing leadership.
I’d like to hear from both organizations whether you have any concerns about effective representation of smaller organizations. Clearly, you’re taken care of, and you will make very substantive contributions, but what about the organizations that aren’t specified and don’t have the “most representative” label?
Ms. Bruske: Thank you, first of all, for the kind thoughts, and thank you for the excellent question.
At the Canadian Labour Congress, we represent 3 million workers right across the country — everything from very large public and private sector unions to very small independent-type unions and trade unions. We know that our union partners — our affiliates — are speaking with workers at all times, whether they are unionized or not. And we are speaking with workers at all times, whether they are unionized or not, because we have an interest in understanding their current challenges and issues, as well as what their pathways to unionization might be; I’ll be quite frank. However, we also collaborate on other things, whether it be child care issues, Employment Insurance issues or a whole variety of different matters, where we seek that information from a variety of sources.
We will continue to do that work, and having additional voices at the table with a balanced perspective from various backgrounds, sectors and industries — like my colleague Ms. Harrison will likely also indicate to you — is critically important. We acknowledge that.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Ms. Harrison: Thank you. The only other thing I would add, which wasn’t yet talked about, is that both the Canadian Labour Congress and Unifor do collaborate with other organizations, both within the labour spectrum — so it’s some other smaller unions — as well as social justice partners who are really passionate around the issue of EI, and we meet with them frequently through an interprovincial EI working group.
We would continue that dialogue even outside of this council to ensure that those voices that maybe aren’t around that table are still represented, and to ensure that we’re still cohesive with what everyone would want and expect such a council to be talking about and discussing.
I’m pretty proud of the work that both the Canadian Labour Congress and Unifor participate in over and above our large organizations, ensuring that everyone is on the same page in terms of these issues that we’re discussing, specifically training and helping with labour market adjustments, which is one of my many portfolios at Unifor.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: My question is for our two guests, whom I thank. What we see in subsection 29.1(3) is that the council will be able to invite non-members to attend meetings, participate in working groups, issue opinions and produce reports.
I’d like to hear from you about the importance of this ability of the council to invite people who aren’t members. Is this important? What difference does it make in terms of representation and diversity? I’d like to hear your general thoughts on this. Could you start, Ms. Harrison?
[English]
Ms. Harrison: Thank you. I think that recommendation is really important just to ensure that we have consensus, and that we have other people represented around the table who maybe can’t participate as frequently. For smaller organizations that are taking on a lot of work, going to three meetings a year — or whatever that looks like, if there’s an amendment made that I heard earlier — is sometimes difficult.
I think that would help ensure different voices come to the table and get their concerns across at this council structure.
It’s also important to have guests — and we talked about it in the development of the bill — from provincial jurisdictions, which I don’t think was highlighted a lot today. I work with the provinces on labour adjustment supports in my role at Unifor, and it’s done differently across all jurisdictions in the country. There’s an opportunity — through this council — to actually learn which provinces do it best. I have my own opinions. I’m sure other people have their opinions, but having voices about how that would play out within this council structure is also a benefit to that clause. Thank you.
Ms. Bruske: I would wholeheartedly agree. The more voices, the better in order to make sure that we have diversity represented so that the information that we’re getting at this council table looks like the workers across Canada — from every sector, background, region, province and territory. I think having additional participants come in and provide information will be critically important for all of the parties to fully understand the challenges, and to hopefully come to some consensus and get these issues right.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Thank you both for coming and participating in this committee. I’m not usually an official member of this committee, but I’m replacing someone today, so I can ask questions.
[English]
My question is more in relation to your organization being nationwide and having the possibility to create links with provincial organizations. I would like you to comment more about your links in the provinces, and how you may help create social dialogue at the provincial level.
Ms. Bruske: Thank you, Senator Bellemare. Certainly, the organization that I represent has links with every province and territory, as well as with municipalities, across the country. In each province and territory, we have a federation of labour that’s headed up by infrastructure that does research and works closely with the provincial governments, as well as with the provincial opposition, in terms of understanding the issues as they relate to workers in each particular province and territory.
That information is brought back to our table in multiple ways. We do common studies. We do a whole variety of information sharing and information gathering. We jointly participate in a variety of meetings throughout the year to understand the issues at hand; the types of legislation coming up; and the kinds of things that we would like to see passed in legislation, whether at the provincial or at the federal level, and how that will impact workers — not just across one region, but across all regions.
We try to be very systematic in approaching it while being mindful that, geographically, there are many challenges that are different from one region to the next, and we need to be the voice for all workers and have that information to present.
Senator Bellemare: Thank you.
Ms. Harrison: Similar to the Canadian Labour Congress, we also have structures — set up across the country — within our organization called regional councils. Funnily enough, it was easy for me to come to Ottawa in person today because our Ontario Regional Council is actually taking place and voting on recommendations and solutions in Ottawa this weekend.
We have regional directors — who are elected leadership all across the country — who build those linkages, and then we have those council structures that vote on and pass recommendations, yet are the conduit to our provincial governments across the country.
Over and above that, Unifor is really committed around the training, upskilling and labour market adjustment piece in building relationships with different ministry offices and staff in all the different jurisdictions across the country.
That’s another thing that we go above and beyond on in order to make those linkages and to ensure the dialogue on these training supports is what’s needed for our members. Specifically, when I was talking about the dislocation of members — when they have plant closures, or when they are impacted by the climate crisis, as an example — we have those linkages to connect to in order to get them the supports that are needed. Thank you.
Senator Bellemare: I would like to hear about your participation. This bill creates an advisory committee, and we know that unions and employers participate in some boards, such as the board at the FutureSkills board. Can you comment on that, and compare the difference between those two institutions?
Ms. Bruske: We participate with many employers at a variety of tables. It’s not just at the national level, but also at the international level. We participate very actively in the International Labour Organization, where we meet with employer groups to try to find solutions to workforce issues right across the globe.
We are not unpractised in the art of getting together with employers in the room to find solutions to issues and to hear each other out. We always think that it’s best when you can have all participants at the table, where you can sometimes agree to disagree but, at least, fully understand where that other side is coming from, because that also informs our thinking. It also informs the positions that we may be taking on other matters that might be related in the future, especially when it comes to skills training; looking at what our economy will look like in the future; and the kind of training and vocational opportunities that we will have. It will be critically important that we are speaking to each other so that we can achieve the goals that we’re setting out to achieve, especially in the climate that we have right now, where everybody is becoming very entrenched.
Having another opportunity to more regularly have conversations with the other side — although I would like to say “the common side” because we are all in this together at the end of the day — is critically important.
Ms. Harrison: Similarly, our union participates internationally as well as nationally in those structures, such as industry councils — even globally. I think that’s really important.
Even the construction of this bill was really a consensus-based model of employer groups and trade unions in Canada coming together with government to say, “Hey, we can all agree on this language,” or “Maybe we need to tweak this sentence or tweak how this is worded,” but everyone came together and agreed on what was put forward to this version today.
I mentioned it in my remarks, but Unifor was involved in this long EI consultation process over the last two years, and what I took from the meetings that I was in — where employer groups and labour groups were present — was that, a lot of the time, we did agree around EI and what needed to happen. Sure, you will always have those nuances, but I really discovered that when we talk about finding solutions, it’s easier to come to a consensus between the two groups than we sometimes think it is. I’ll leave it at that, and I, again, agree with my colleague Ms. Bruske.
Senator Greenwood: My question builds on a bit of what has already been said.
How would the development of an EI council enable unions to be more involved in the development and oversight of labour market development agreements — the relationships with the provinces? How would the council enable labour to overcome some of the challenges that you folks face?
Ms. Bruske: I think, first of all, gathering the information from the various different provinces and territories is particularly important. As I said earlier, although worker issues are very similar across the country, there are definitely geographical and sectoral differences, and we need to turn our minds to that. Having a way to filter that information into a common place has to be thought of, and I think this gives us the opportunity to filter that information to one central location.
I’m sorry; I forgot the second part of the question that you asked.
Senator Greenwood: How would the council enable you to overcome some of the challenges that you might face?
Ms. Bruske: I think the opportunity to have more robust information sharing will be critical. Bringing the points to the table and identifying the sectors that particularly need to have a second thought or a second viewpoint will be important. We’re seeing things like the gig economy. We haven’t necessarily had an opportunity to look at some of the nuances, and legislation is changing and evolving in different provinces as they are managing how we look at gig workers. That’s just one example of the many different types of workers that we have out there.
Those are things where we want to ensure that we have information from that sector and from those workers at the table, and that we also hear from gig employers — the world of work has changed since 1990. It’s time that we update our systems and that we have the input specific to these points that we take under advisement.
Ms. Harrison: Thank you so much for your question.
One of the things that I find with labour market development agreements is that even each province doesn’t know what the other provinces are doing with this federal funding for these amazing programs. Sometimes I think these councils would just help with that educational piece. We need to be able to hear what’s working. Of course, with unions, we want a voice to say what works better for union members or even the non-unionized, as Ms. Bruske was just talking about.
The council structure would absolutely not only help unions, but it would also help governmental authorities and entities learn what would work best to help with labour market adjustment supports, upskilling, training and all these things that are really necessary at this time. Thank you.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you both for your responses. I’m always mindful of regional diversity, especially when we’re talking about national programs and organizations. How do we take into account regional diversity? I’m sure you must face that in your challenges because, as you say, standards and regulations — all those sorts of things — vary by province and territory. Having a platform that then allows that kind of conversation to occur probably could lead to some fairly significant innovation and responses as well.
Sorry, that was more of a comment than a question.
Ms. Harrison: Yes, I fully agree.
The Deputy Chair: They can comment upon your comment, if they would like.
Ms. Harrison: I agree — especially with labour market supports and Employment Insurance, there are regional differences. Climate catastrophe is another example, whether it’s the fires in B.C., what’s happening to the fisheries on the East Coast or the seasonal workers in Quebec. There are such huge regional differences in how workers are impacted across the country, so I fully agree with your statement. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Bruske, would you like to comment?
Ms. Bruske: I think Ms. Harrison captured it all. Thank you for that.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Burey: I would just like to go back to the comment made by Ms. Bruske on the other advisory groups that have been formed by the government. From both of your perspectives, is there any kind of turf war with this legislation coming in? What are your thoughts on that?
Ms. Bruske: Thank you for that really important question. I think it’s really important to note that there are multiple advisory groups that are happening right away, such as the union-led advisory council and the group that’s specific to the Canadian sustainable jobs act. However, those are short term in nature in terms of studying the issue as it’s evolving right now. Certainly, the union-led advisory table is very short term to get a snapshot of what’s happening right now. Sustainable jobs, hopefully, will be for a longer term, because this is a long-term trajectory that we’re on.
Regardless, we need a permanent opportunity to continue to have these conversations going forward.
Our world is evolving so quickly. There are so many changes happening in the world of work. It can’t be a one-and-done. This needs to be an ongoing collaboration-building exercise and an ongoing opportunity for the parties to meet and explore the issues.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
Ms. Harrison: I fully agree; I don’t believe there will be a turf war — I sure hope not. More collaboration and more of these are necessary. This is just one really great example that I think labour and, hopefully, employer groups will speak friendly about tomorrow when they are coming, I believe.
The more the merrier. The more that we can improve social dialogue, the better. We love the tripartite structures.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much to our witnesses. You’ve brought a lot of information to us here today, so thank you very much for that. It always helps when we have a lot of information when we are studying a bill, so we really appreciate it.
Senators, this brings us to the end of the panel. I would like to thank the witnesses for their time and testimony. As I said earlier, five-minute presentations take a lot longer than five minutes to prepare.
There being no further business, this meeting will be followed by our steering committee.
(The committee adjourned.)