THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 30, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 11:31 a.m. [ET] to study 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: My name is Jane Cordy, a senator from Nova Scotia, and I’m the Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. I would like to begin by welcoming members of our committee and the witnesses who are here this morning — a special welcome to you — as well as members of the public who are watching our proceedings this morning.
Before we begin, I would like to do a round table and have senators introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I am Marie-Françoise Mégie, a senator from Quebec.
Senator Bellemare: I am Diane Bellemare, a senator from Quebec.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you for being here. I am Chantal Petitclerc, a senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Osler: Gigi Osler, senator for Manitoba.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, senator for Ontario.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator for Ontario.
The Deputy Chair: Today, we continue 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 this morning, we welcome Diana Palmerin-Velasco. She is the Senior Director, Future of Work, with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
From the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, we also welcome Jasmin Guénette, Vice-President, National Affairs; and Christina Santini, Director, National Affairs.
I remind witnesses that you will have four minutes each for your opening statements, followed by questions from our members.
Ms. Palmerin-Velasco, you have the floor.
Diana Palmerin-Velasco, Senior Director, Future of Work, Canadian Chamber of Commerce: Thank you. Good morning, deputy chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today as part of your examination of Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council).
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce represents some 200,000 Canadian businesses, through more than 450 local, provincial and territorial chambers, plus 100 association members. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has played a leading role in the discussions resulting in this bill and has officially endorsed it. Our President and CEO, the Honourable Perrin Beatty, has stated:
With the creation of an employment insurance advisory council, Senator Bellemare’s Bill S-244 will enshrine a true and meaningful tripartite approach between business, labour and government. This will ensure that the Employment Insurance program is sustainable, responsive, non-partisan, inclusive and relevant for current and future generations of Canadian employers and employees.
The Canadian economy faces multiple challenges, and the world of work is rapidly changing. In the context of the post-pandemic recovery, an aging population, skills shortages and the transition to the digital and green economy, we need to create conditions for business, labour and government to work together as true partners. To achieve this, productive dialogue and the exchange of ideas and information among partners must continuously take place through an ongoing process of engagement designed to build mutual understanding.
One of the main purposes of Bill S-244 is to enhance social dialogue within the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. Since 1990, employers and workers have funded the Employment Insurance, or EI, system in its entirety. As a matter of principle, it’s only fair that business and labour have access to a tripartite institutionalized structure through the establishment of the Employment Insurance council. This council would allow business and labour to provide advice and agree on mutually acceptable and beneficial recommendations regarding labour market policies — particularly, as they relate to Employment Insurance and skills development.
The International Labour Organization defines social dialogue as a tripartite process where there are:
. . . all types of negotiation, consultation or simply exchange of information between, or among, representatives of governments, employers and workers, on issues of common interest relating to economic and social policy. . . .
Unlike consultation, social dialogue is not a short-lived, unilateral process. It is a proven governance tool that has worked well in several countries and across several international organizations. Successful social dialogue structures and processes have proven potential to resolve important economic and social issues.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce supports the establishment of the Employment Insurance council to strengthen the work that — for almost 20 years — the Canada Employment Insurance Commission has done to facilitate business and labour input into employment policy in Canada. Employers are invested in the viability of the EI program, and, as such, we want to be true partners in finding and implementing solutions to ensure a well-functioning system that meets the needs and expectations of Canadians.
Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to appear, and I would be pleased to take any questions you might have. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Palmerin-Velasco, for your remarks.
Mr. Guénette, the floor is yours, and you also have four minutes.
Jasmin Guénette, Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business: Hello, everyone. I am here today with my colleague Christina Santini; she is the Director of National Affairs with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB.
We represent 97,000 members across Canada and in all sectors of the economy. We would like to thank the committee for inviting us today.
I will make some brief remarks, and my colleague and I will be available to answer any questions you may have.
CFIB is supportive of the spirit of Bill S-244, which would establish an Employment Insurance council to provide advice and make recommendations to the commission, on its own initiative or at the commission’s request, on any matter related to the powers, duties and functions of the commission.
We understand that the commissioners would not be bound by those recommendations, and consensus may not always be easy to be reached, but may not necessarily be required. The council is meant to provide a forum for dialogue and a source of advice from both sides of the table at one table.
As you have heard from the Commissioner for Employers from the Canada Employment Insurance Commission yesterday, Bill S-244 would provide a forum for employer groups and labour groups to discuss issues of mutual concern. We want to remind the committee that employers pay 1.4 times what employees pay on EI.
Our members value the EI program. They want to make sure that the EI program is financially viable over time and fair for small- and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs. Our members want to be a part of shaping the EI program now and into the future.
CFIB supports initiatives based on tripartite values. An EI council with equal representation from employers and workers, engaging in discussions together about EI and its related programs, will provide a forum where the strengths and weaknesses of the program can be discussed with both sides at the same table. It would encourage and facilitate continued engagement and dialogue between all interested parties, including small businesses.
We encourage senators to vote in favour of this bill.
Thank you, and we are happy to answer your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Guénette, for your comments as well. We’ll proceed to questions from senators. Senators, you will have four minutes for your question, and that also includes the answer from the witness.
If you’re directing your question to a particular witness, please let them know as you’re speaking. If you want it answered by all three of the witnesses, or just two of the witnesses, please indicate that as well.
Senator Osler: Thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony today. My question is for the representatives from CFIB, and it is regarding the composition of the council.
One of CFIB’s recommendations to the federal government is to “Strengthen competition rules to ensure a level playing field between Canadian small businesses and multinational giants . . . .”
In what ways can the council’s composition be structured to ensure a level playing field?
Christina Santini, Director, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business: By having a core representation from both employer and employee groups, we hope that the composition of the employer representatives will be wide-reaching, representing both big and small businesses. We believe that is how small business interests — and ensuring that they remain competitive — will be there and represented at that table.
Mr. Guénette: In addition, having a council where small businesses can be involved at the table — to share recommendations with other business stakeholder groups that may represent larger companies, and to discuss issues — is a good way to talk about the need to have a better level playing field, as you mentioned. We can have that discussion at one of the tables.
Senator Osler: Other than the size of the business — small, medium-sized or larger businesses — would CFIB have any other recommendations on the composition of the council?
Mr. Guénette: We want to make sure that the voice of small businesses is heard through the council. We don’t have an official position on whom the members should be. Obviously, having both the employer and employee representatives at the same table is a great opportunity to have the necessary dialogue on EI. However, we don’t have a recommendation on the composition of it. We’d like to see small businesses represented at the table, but we don’t have a firm recommendation on whom the other representatives should be.
Senator Osler: Ms. Palmerin-Velasco, do you have any thoughts on the composition of the council and, in particular, your remarks about the council being inclusive and relevant?
Ms. Palmerin-Velasco: It’s not a specific recommendation: There are many ways to try to ensure that many voices are represented through committees and working groups. I think trying to achieve perfect representation is unlikely to happen, but perhaps it could be one of the principles for the council to always keep in mind — to try to incorporate as many voices as possible.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Our next question is from Senator Bellemare, the sponsor of the bill.
Senator Bellemare: Thank you. I have the same question for all of you.
When the federal government introduced the Canada training credit, were you consulted and were you able to have input on this program? The Canada training credit was a fiscal measure, but there was also this position in relation to EI. Have you been involved in the consultations for the measures that were announced just before COVID?
[Translation]
Mr. Guénette: We are actively involved in consultations related to the EI program, senator. I can’t recall the exact consultations you’re referring to that took place before COVID — it’s as though COVID erased some things from our memories. Nevertheless, we participate in consultations frequently, as regularly as possible. The EI program is important to our members. SMEs employ a lot of workers. We often say that small businesses are labour-intensive. A lot of people work for SMEs, so it’s an issue that comes up time and again. We survey our members about EI all the time. One of the reasons we support your bill is that we feel it’s important to have a tripartite council, where we can be part of the conversation. To answer your specific question, I don’t really remember.
Ms. Santini: I will just add that we did provide feedback after the announcement came out.
Senator Bellemare: I remember. Everyone had comments after.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Palmerin-Velasco, do you have anything to add?
Ms. Palmerin-Velasco: I’m not familiar with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce being involved in any consultation for the Canada training credit.
With consultations, the department does significant work to try to do that, but when we talk with members and with associations, they often don’t know that there was a consultation or an opportunity to present a submission. I think the establishment of this council is an incredible opportunity to ensure more representation and to strengthen the work of the commission. We welcome this.
Senator Bellemare: The government says often — in public and in the international forum — that the FutureSkills Research Lab is their body of social dialogue. Are you members on the board of the FutureSkills Research Lab?
Mr. Guénette: No.
Senator Bellemare: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Welcome to the witnesses.
I heard Ms. Palmerin-Velasco talk about new challenges, the post-pandemic recovery, the aging population and the labour shortage. As a layperson in this area, I noticed that the labour shortage caused another phenomenon: young people taking a job, not liking it and quitting. They get another job, they work and they quit, never accumulating the total number of hours they need to qualify for EI. That is something new since the pandemic ended. Have you looked into that at all? To what extent could these changes to the EI regime help with that issue? I’m not sure whether Ms. Palmerin-Velasco… Mr. Guénette can jump in as well.
[English]
Ms. Palmerin-Velasco: Thank you, senator.
Yes, I think the establishment of the council would provide this permanent institutionalized forum for this dialogue in order to discuss challenges as they arise. I think that example of the pandemic is very fresh. The economy is changing rapidly. There are lots of labour, skills and challenges where we need this consistent engagement — this platform — to build trust and understanding between business, labour and government in order to work together to find solutions.
Ms. Santini: That’s exactly along the lines of what I was going to say. It provides an opportunity for information exchange and dialogue. The two parties can flesh out discussions on the impacts on either the youth or the employers who have to deal with this retention problem because they also invest quite a bit in training and recruitment.
[Translation]
Mr. Guénette: When we ask our members what has the biggest impact on their ability to increase sales and grow their business, the labour shortage is at the top of the list. Right now, in fact, it is the second-biggest factor affecting their ability to grow and sell their products and services.
Any additional mechanisms to identify labour solutions, to help SMEs recruit, train and keep the workers they need, to take a long view… Any body fostering that type of support is something we need, of course. It’s necessary. I think the council proposed in the bill will certainly be beneficial in ensuring that workers, workers’ representatives and employers are all part of the conversation. That, in turn, will help to curb the phenomenon you described, so it’s something fewer businesses face.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: My question has been answered somewhat, but I am going to give you a chance to dig a bit deeper. I’m trying to get a sense of the problem this bill is endeavouring to solve. What problem, challenge or barrier would this bill overcome?
Yesterday, and again today, we heard support for the bill and the makeup of the council, and the ability to access people as needed. I’m just trying to take a step back. What problem is this bill solving? What do you want it to do? How will this change the dynamics?
Mr. Guénette: One thing that helps is having conversations before decisions are made. For SMEs, it often feels as though they have to live with the decisions the government makes. If a council is established and those conversations take place before a decision is made, that alone is a clear benefit. A tripartite approach helps because it brings everyone to the table. We represent employers and workers have their representatives, and we can all sit down together. We can say, here’s the vision we have. They can tell us their vision. The idea is to find common ground that will satisfy both sides. Keep in mind that employers pay 1.4 times what workers pay. There has to be a place, a forum, where the stakeholders can discuss their views before decisions are made. That’s one of the benefits this council would have.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you. That’s very helpful. What about you, Ms. Palmerin-Velasco?
[English]
Ms. Palmerin-Velasco: Regarding the comments, I would say that it’s going to take time if this council is established.
From my perspective, the main value is the relationship building and the understanding of different perspectives. Employment Insurance, skills training and workforce development are huge issues — I think this council would be very helpful in addressing those issues. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. We will likely have time for a second round.
Senator Burey: Welcome to all of our witnesses today. I was interested in your comments. I want to dig a little bit deeper into some of the questions that we asked regarding recognizing the importance of social dialogue and having this tripartite council.
Ms. Palmerin-Velasco, you spoke about what worked in other countries. You talked about it being well researched; we heard that as well. But do you have any more specific information regarding some of the outcomes, such as improved labour relations, decreases in labour actions, increased worker benefits, underemployed groups, represented groups and retention of workers? Do you have any kind of information about where this has been used in other countries, as well as what the benefits have been and what Canada could look to?
Ms. Palmerin-Velasco: That’s why we have Senator Bellemare. She is the expert. I am nowhere close to that.
As part of my role, I am involved with international forums, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, and the G20. I often hear from other countries, and they talk about this social dialogue. Of course, it’s different; it’s dependent upon the specificities of each context.
In some cases, it might not always happen, but the idea of consensus is that it doesn’t happen right away. It is regular engagement and consistently building trust and relationships. Could you imagine if we could get to that point? My understanding is that here in Canada — and Quebec — there are some successful examples of social dialogue.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
Would the other witnesses have something else to add?
[Translation]
Mr. Guénette: I don’t have anything to add regarding outcomes in other countries.
[English]
Senator Burey: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
So far, we’ve been hearing remarkable consensus on this bill. Kudos to Senator Bellemare. But I want to focus on the bill just a little bit more, if you will. Are you happy with the legislation, as it’s written, for its application here in Canada? We look outward — internationally — but, for Canada, is this bill the way it should be? Do you have any remaining concerns — that we haven’t addressed so far — that you would like to elaborate upon?
Ms. Santini: In viewing the bill, there is nothing that we would stand against. We are in support of the spirit of the bill overall. Would we propose any amendments? Not at this time.
Ms. Palmerin-Velasco: It is the same for us. This bill was developed in consultation with business and labour. As I mentioned in my remarks, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce was heavily involved. So it is the same for us: It’s the spirit, and there is nothing that we would recommend changing at this point.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I have a straightforward question. It’s positive to see that the council is going to provide advice and recommendations. The comment we heard yesterday was obviously that the council’s input is not binding. It fits into the social dialogue, at least that’s what I understand. Even though the council’s input is not binding, are you convinced that, in the spirit of social dialogue, it will lead to greater accountability, say? Is it fair to think that the council will help things in that regard?
Mr. Guénette: I think so. The council is a forum to discuss EI-related issues that impact workers and employers in advance of decision making. As I said earlier, having the opportunity to hear the perspectives of the key players beforehand is important. If those conversations take place amongst the players — workers, government representatives, other employer groups — the hope is obviously that the resulting EI legislation will reflect those conversations.
That is basically the idea. If legislation is passed without taking into account the conversations that took place beforehand, then, yes, it may be possible after the fact, in certain cases, to raise questions, to ask why and to try to find the reason. I think this will bring more transparency and accountability. It will have multiple benefits.
Again, the meetings have to take place and the framework has to be set up. I think it will definitely help the situation.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you. It’s an additional tool if things aren’t going quite right.
Mr. Guénette: It’s a forum for discussion, a place we can come back to afterwards to ask those questions. It’s a tripartite body where conversations take place. Sometimes, a consensus will emerge, but obviously not on every issue. Let’s be realistic. Nevertheless, if the government brings in a measure that does not reflect the consensus on a particular issue, the council provides an opportunity to ask why. The council serves as a conduit for questions and possibly changes that reflect the conversations that took place beforehand.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
The Canada Employment Insurance Commission has four members, one of whom is the Commissioner for Employers to represent employers. All three of you are representing employers here today. Can you tell me about the kind of interaction that you have with the commissioner? The commissioner was here yesterday testifying on this bill.
Do you have input? Is that commissioner a channel for you, as business people, into the process of the commission? Have you had adequate access? Have you had influence? I am trying to understand why this might be needed since there already is a Commissioner for Employers.
Can you describe the interaction you have had and the way that you deal with the Commissioner for Employers, as it is now? That is the status quo, of course. There are other means of influencing public policy, but that would be the main one because that is the way the structure is set up right now.
Ms. Palmerin-Velasco: I can start. I would say that the interaction with the Commissioner for Employers is strong. It is really good. She does a really good job of consulting and keeping us informed.
With the council, the difference is being at the same table. It would strengthen the great work that is already happening through the commissioners. This would be like another layer. Having equal representation from business and from labour and being at the same table are what would make it different.
Right now, we don’t interact, for example, with the Commissioner for Workers. Our interaction is only through the Commissioner for Employers.
Ms. Santini: To add to that, the council would be a tool for the commissioners. It would be an advisory body, but it would also be an area where they would get to hear the views from both sides at once. Both commissioners would get to hear the same thing from their parties.
Ultimately, we see the committee not only as a forum for dialogue, but also as an additional resourcing tool for the commissioners to do their job. From our perspective, the Commissioner for Employers is doing all she can to represent employers’ interests, and that is very much appreciated. She opens dialogue, welcomes emails and is very representative. It is just a question of creating another forum where views can be exchanged from both sides.
Senator Dasko: Can you describe the interaction that you have now with the commissioner? Is it routinized or regular? What topics do you discuss?
Mr. Guénette: Yes, we have regularly scheduled meetings with her, where she goes over different files of interest regarding EI. It is booked well in advance — a series of meetings. There are different working groups under the Commissioner for Employers. We also have ad hoc conversations when needed.
I want to say in front of this committee that Nancy Healey is doing a very good job. She represents the interests of employers with a lot of energy. We have regular communication with her. The Commissioner for Employers supports this bill because she also believes that it would help her in our work and strengthen the voice of employers within EI. I do not see any contradiction, and I believe that it would add to the value of the Commissioner for Employers, and it would benefit employers. It would also benefit employee representatives. It would be another place where government could share information and could speak to those who are paying for this program.
The EI program is paid for by employees and employers. It is important to keep in mind that decisions that are made for EI should be decisions where employers and employees may not always agree, but they can have a channel of conversation and communication and share their interests. It is important to remember that EI is paid for by employers and employees, and we need to ensure that the voice of employers is heard regularly and as loud as possible.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I forgot to thank you earlier. I am very glad you’re here today.
This is primarily for Mr. Guénette, probably because he is most familiar with the situation in Quebec. The CFIB is involved in the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail. In my day, it was involved, and I believe it still is. How does it work, if it falls under your responsibility? Perhaps this falls under someone else’s responsibility, as far as Quebec is concerned, but how do you work with other employer associations like the Quebec federation of chambers of commerce? It has a seat at the table, as do the unions and the organizations. They all work together to more or less oversee Part II of the Employment Insurance Act. I’d like you to comment on that very practical role of the tripartite process in Quebec.
Mr. Guénette: My answer may leave you wanting, since I’m not as involved on the Quebec side. My colleague François Vincent, our vice-president for Quebec, is involved in all those discussion tables and could give you more information on how it works. Obviously, the CFIB, along with other employer groups such as the Conseil du patronat du Québec, the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal and the Quebec federation of chambers of commerce, and many other stakeholders are all at the same discussion tables with the big unions and government officials to talk about training, occupational health and safety, compensation and other challenges. It’s a long-standing model in Quebec, often seen as unique in Canada. All of these discussion tables set Quebec apart.
How does it work day to day? Unfortunately, senator, I can’t answer that.
It’s a structure that Quebec has had in place for a long time now, and I think it’s highly valuable. It gives employer groups an opportunity to sit down with labour representatives, the unions, and talk about issues in advance, so they can agree on guiding principles for future measures.
As I said earlier, it’s not possible to agree on everything. It’s unrealistic to think we would agree on everything, but a council like the one proposed in your bill would foster better communication and a stronger relationship.
Senator Bellemare: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Moodie: In anticipation of your arrival, I was going to ask you a question. So far, we spent a lot of time during this committee meeting trying to understand the concept and the value of social dialogue.
I would like to shift to trying to understand how we measure success. We have heard before that it is somewhat difficult in this area or, perhaps, impossible.
I hope that you may be familiar with some areas, perhaps globally, where there are examples that we can look at and apply to measure success and understand the effectiveness of the council, should it be put in place.
Can you tell us if you are aware of any jurisdictions where there might be some examples that Canada could apply?
Ms. Palmerin-Velasco: That would be, perhaps, a part of the initial conversation — something that would need to be determined by the members of this council, together with the commissioners.
For me, mainly it is around this ideal: Through building understanding, perhaps you’re reaching consensus when it comes to skills training and all of these things, as well as effective collaboration. That would be a measure of success.
On specific issues, I am not sure that I can answer that. That would need to be a part of the conversation for the members of the council.
Ms. Santini: We do not have any performance indicators or measures of success to suggest. The Quebec example that was referenced is a forum of dialogue. It could be interesting to see how Quebec has measured success in the past. We cannot speak to or propose specific measures.
Senator Moodie: That’s great. Thank you. From where I sit — as a medical person — sometimes it is not that clear how to apply a performance indicator. Sometimes you need to use surrogates. It could be numbers of successful agreements that are reached, and then compare it over time.
Have we ever, in this area, thought about this so that we can track more effectively if it works, and it becomes something that we can apply, generalize and scale up more effectively?
Mr. Guénette: That is a very good comment. CFIB has been recommending for many years that we improve transparency and implement more best practices.
For example, through the Employment Insurance program, there is a lot of money that is sent to the provinces for training purposes. It is not clear what the success is of those training programs. It is unclear how the money spent is actually used on the ground. It can be quite opaque and difficult to find the information.
Maybe one of the values of the council would be to have a space where you can have those conversations, as well as talk about the needs that specific provinces may have on training, create a structure where you can discuss this in subsequent meetings and follow up on things.
Right now, there is no such place, or, if it exists, I am not aware of it.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I’m going to follow up on the phenomenon I talked about earlier, employee turnover, which is really hurting small businesses. I heard you say that small businesses should be on the same footing as large businesses, that the social dialogue should include understanding and so forth. You may have to look into your crystal ball — I’m not sure — but do you think this could even lead to more flexible EI eligibility criteria or, the opposite, more stringent criteria? What do you think?
Mr. Guénette: I would say that, if there is a discussion table, a council with government, worker and employer representation that discusses changes to the EI system, it could definitely give rise to a variety of changes. Would those changes benefit solely one side over the other? I can’t predict the future. Who knows? I will say, though, that the government did conduct fairly significant consultations nearly two years ago, if I’m not mistaken, with a view to modernizing EI. Round tables met, reports were produced, a number of measures were put in place to discuss EI in its current form and ways it needed to change. The government referred to modernizing the EI system.
A council like this is more than just a body the government can consult with to find out what others think, take notes and go on its way. Personally, I see it as a place where everyone has an equal voice to discuss what’s coming ahead of time. As I see it, this is really a beneficial component.
Clearly, it could lead to changes in how the program is structured. It’s too soon to tell what those changes might be, but that is definitely one of the things that makes the council meaningful.
As far as consultations go, the government tells us that it is going to consult with us, as representatives of SMEs. When the day comes, we make our submission or provide our feedback. However, when bills are introduced or regulations are amended, we realize that they don’t contain our recommendations. That’s how it feels sometimes. Maybe a body like this one will ensure that our voice carries more weight.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Senators, this brings us to the end of the panel. I would like to thank the witnesses very much for the time, testimony and detailed answers that you were able to provide to us today. It was very good.
Joining us for our second panel today, we welcome, from Employment and Social Development Canada, Mona Nandy, Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch; Steven Coté, Executive Director, Employment Insurance Modernization Policy and Planning, Skills and Employment Branch; and Angelina Barrados, Executive Director, Employment Insurance Horizontal Policy Coordination, Skills and Employment Branch.
Thank you so much for joining us here today. I remind officials that you will have five minutes allocated for opening statement, followed by questions from our members. I know that you were all observing earlier. You probably have appeared before many committees as well.
Ms. Nandy, I understand that you will deliver the opening remarks. The floor is yours.
[Translation]
Mona Nandy, Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you to the deputy chair and members of this committee for having me and my colleagues here today.
My name is Mona Nandy, and I am the Director General of Employment Insurance Policy, in the Skills and Employment Branch at Employment and Social Development Canada.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the ancestral territories of the First Nations, the Inuit, and the Métis Nation. The place from which I am joining you today is located on the unceded territory of the Algonquin, Anishinabe and Omàmiwinini nations.
Members of the committee, our understanding of Bill S-244 is that it proposes amendments to the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and to the Employment Insurance Act, to create a new Employment Insurance Council that could provide advice and make recommendations to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission on any matters relating to its powers, duties and functions, subject to any limits that the commission may establish.
While I cannot speak to the government’s position on this bill and its proposals, I will take this opportunity to provide some background on the EI program, its governance, and the different ways in which stakeholders are currently engaged and can provide input about the program.
The EI program is Canada’s largest income support program and a critical feature of our social safety net.
In a typical year, about two million Canadian workers rely on the EI program for temporary income support when they lose their jobs through no fault of their own, or they need to step away from work due to specific life events, such as illness, pregnancy, childbirth, or caring for a newborn child, adopted child or other loved one.
The Canadian Employment Insurance Commission plays a key role in overseeing the EI program. The commission is a tripartite organization, representing the interests of labour and businesses through the appointments of an EI commissioner for workers and an EI commissioner for employers.
It also includes the Deputy Minister of Employment and Social Development Canada and the Senior Associate Deputy Minister and Chief Operating Officer of Service Canada, as chair and vice-chair respectively of the commission and representing the interests of the Government of Canada.
[English]
Ensuring tripartite representation in the oversight of EI is rooted in historical practice; it dates back to 1940 when the program was first created, along with the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
While there have been many changes to the program and its governance since then, the principle of supporting tripartite engagement in EI has remained constant for over 80 years. The governance structure of the program specifies the roles and responsibilities of the commission and the minister related to the EI program. In particular, the responsibility for policy-making related to EI rests with the minister to ensure that the program reflects government priorities, including the impact on the fiscal framework.
In addition, the commission has responsibilities with respect to the administration and delivery of the program, as set out in the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act.
The main statutory function of the commission is to administer the EI program, as it is described in the Employment Insurance Act and its associated regulations. The commission also has a role in reviewing and approving policies related to program administration and delivery, and can make EI regulations with the approval of the Governor-in-Council.
This regulation-making authority is enshrined in the Employment Insurance Act.
The commission also plays a key role in providing advice on certain appeals before proceeding to the federal courts or to the Supreme Court of Canada.
While the commission maintains administrative oversight of EI, it has delegated the day-to-day implementation and delivery of the program to Service Canada and the Department of Employment and Social Development Canada. It has also delegated the collection of EI premiums to the Canada Revenue Agency.
The commission has an important role under the Employment Insurance Act to monitor the program’s effectiveness through the development and publication each year of an annual Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report, which is also tabled in Parliament.
In keeping with this responsibility, the commission oversees a robust research agenda with the department for this monitoring and assessment report on issues related to the impact and effectiveness of employment benefits and support measures.
The commission also has a critical function in ensuring transparency and stability in the annual EI premium rate-setting process. Each year, it commissions the EI premium report from the senior actuary, which is tabled in Parliament, and sets the annual EI premium rate according to the projections of the senior actuary. Through this same process, the commission also sets the annual maximum insurable earnings threshold for the EI program according to the legislative requirement.
As noted earlier, responsibility for policy-making related to EI rests with the minister, which is aligned with government priorities, including the impact on the fiscal framework. In addition to all of these functions, the EI Commissioner for Workers and Commissioner for Employers have clear roles and responsibilities to consult with employer and labour groups — the very same that they represent.
Both commissioners are able to provide valuable insights on stakeholder views about the EI program, its rules, its administration and its delivery to inform policy work and advice to the minister. They do this through ongoing engagement with their established stakeholder networks, with non-governmental organizations and with individuals who are EI premium payers and clients.
The importance of the stakeholder engagement function by the commissioners and the commission is regularly demonstrated, but a key example would be the recent consultations on the EI program.
As CFIB just mentioned, these comprehensive consultations were held in 2021-22, with over 35 national and regional round tables that were led jointly by the then-Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion with both the Commissioner for Workers and the Commissioner for Employers.
The tripartite approach to these consultations helped ensure that there was active participation from over 200 stakeholders, including labour and employer groups, community organizations, sector groups, self-employed and gig worker associations, parent and family associations and academics.
[Translation]
The reports on what we heard during these consultations are publicly available on the department’s website and will inform work that is under way on targeted improvements to the program.
With that, I will conclude my opening remarks today. I trust that it has provided some helpful context on the EI program, its governance, and the different ways in which stakeholders are currently engaged and can provide input on EI. Thank you. We would be happy to answer the committee’s questions.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Nandy. We will now proceed to questions from senators. I have in my notes that it’s four minutes for the question and answer, but it is likely that we will have a second round.
Senator Osler: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. My question is on the monitoring, the assessment and the reporting of the council. Ms. Nandy, you had referenced that in terms of the work that you do. Currently, Bill S-244 does not contain specific reporting mandates for the council, apart from the commission reporting annually. Do you believe it would be beneficial to include performance indicators for the council and reporting requirements?
Ms. Nandy: Thank you for the question, senator. I would have to refer back to Bill S-244, but my understanding is that it did have a reference to a reporting role for the council.
In terms of indicators of performance, again, I cannot speak to the government’s position on the council. That being said, as I described, the commission already has a significant reporting role, as per the requirement to develop and report out on the impact and effectiveness of the EI program on an annual basis.
Senator Osler: Does anyone else from Employment and Social Development Canada have anything to add to the comments? Okay. I’ll leave it at that. Thank you.
Senator Seidman: Thank you for the presentation. I’ll just get right to the point here, Ms. Nandy. Clause 2 of Bill S-244 amends the Department of Employment and Social Development Act following section 24(1) to provide specific powers, duties and functions of the commission. I’d like to know if you have any concerns about this part of the bill, and if this clause may have any unintended consequences. For that matter, do you see any unintended consequences overall from this bill?
Ms. Nandy: I’ll start, and then I’ll turn it over to my colleagues to see if they have any additional views.
While we cannot speak to the government’s position on the bill, our understanding of the bill, as it is currently drafted, is that the creation of the Employment Insurance council, as proposed, presents a potential formalization of the commission’s existing consultative function, and that function is outlined, as I said, under the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act. In that regard, establishing an EI council, as proposed in Bill S-244, could be seen as extending the existing engagement function of the commission onto an additional formal consultative body, as was described, bringing together employer and labour groups into one joint structure. That doesn’t currently exist. As you may have heard from the previous panel members, but I will reiterate, the current stakeholder engagement — which takes place by the commission and the commissioners — takes place bilaterally between each commissioner and the constituents that they represent.
When the bill makes reference to the broad advisory and the reporting roles and functions of the new EI council — and various provisions of the bill were drafted — this might have unintended results on the existing governance of the program. That governance, which is also set out in the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act, leaves the policy-making related to the EI program under the purview of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages. It is the role of the tripartite Canada Employment Insurance Commission to have statutory responsibilities for the administrative oversight, but policy-making rests with the minister, including the impact on the fiscal framework.
A key consideration, senator, in answering your question about unintended consequences, is how a new EI council would interact with the existing roles and responsibilities of both the commission and the minister.
Senator Seidman: I just want to be clear, because you’re saying this could have an impact on the overall governance.
Ms. Nandy: I think we would need more details on how the council could be established — its role and its mandate — but, as currently drafted in the bill, there is a possibility that there could be unintended consequences on the governance structure, as it currently exists, for the EI program and in terms of the policy-making role of the minister with regard to the EI program.
Senator Seidman: Is that because the advisory council provides advice in a policy about policy? Is that what is the issue here? There is policy advice coming from elsewhere that could impact the minister.
Ms. Nandy: That’s right. Again, I’m not an expert; we didn’t draft this particular bill, so I can’t say that I have expertise on its policy intent. On read, there is a potential, without further clarity and determination, that the advisory role and the reporting functions of the new broad advisory council could have unintended results on the existing governance of the program.
Senator Seidman: Okay. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Thank you for being here. You said the bill could have unintended consequences for the governance structure, since the minister makes the decisions about the EI program.
Isn’t it true that Canada has signed International Labour Organization agreements as well as other agreements, and adheres to many international standards in the EI arena? Specifically, the governance structure for unemployment insurance programs, as they are known elsewhere, or the EI program, as we call it here, must include a tripartite approach, since the programs are contribution-based. You are saying that the existing governance structure does not include a tripartite process, since the minister makes the decisions. Could you please confirm whether I heard correctly? I have a follow-up question after that.
Ms. Nandy: Thank you for your question, senator. I have a lot of notes. I’m not familiar with the agreements you mentioned, but I can tell you that the EI program has a history of tripartite engagement. I can give you more information if you give me a moment. I may be able to explain it better in English, if you don’t mind.
[English]
As I said, I’m not familiar with those particular agreements, so I can’t speak to those. What I can say is that there is a long and well-established history in the EI program — in fact, in its predecessor, the unemployment insurance program — of having tripartite advisory committees to provide advice regarding EI issues. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, that principal tripartite engagement still continues to exist in the EI program through the commission.
Would it be helpful if I gave you some examples of what has existed in the past — under the unemployment insurance program — from 1940 to 1977?
Senator Bellemare: It’s a concrete question for today.
[Translation]
When the EI program began, well-organized tripartite consultations were held, but over time, they were eliminated. The preamble to the bill references conventions that the government signed.
[English]
Whereas the Government of Canada supports the practice and recognizes the importance of social dialogue through its international undertakings, such as the Employment Service Convention, 1948 (No. 88) and the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144) . . . .
You can read that. My direct question is this: What is the budget that the commissioners — on their own — have in order to organize their meetings and consultation with all the social partners? Could both commissioners decide to invite representative groups to the table to discuss — not in silos, but within themselves? Do they have a discretionary budget and do they have a personal budget, or do they have to ask the deputy minister to pay the bill? Do they have the autonomy of acting to do their job?
Ms. Nandy: I cannot speak to the intricacies of the specific budgets for the individual commissioners. That being said, it is their mandate to consult with their respective constituents, labour groups and employer groups but also, as I said, non-governmental organizations, Canadians and other associations that might be interested in the issues. The form in which they choose to consult with their constituents — to my understanding — is to their discretion. They do hold annual forums currently, at the very least, with each of their stakeholder groups. At times, there may be additional regular meetings, as I think has been described, but, in regard to their choices of who is at those meetings, my understanding is that would be to their discretion, and I can’t speak to the budget.
Senator Burey: Thank you for being here, and for sharing your briefing with us. We met the commissioners yesterday, and today we met with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and the concern that they voiced was that there was not enough engagement, and they felt that they were — not the word “consulted” — not in dialogue with all of the groups together, not just individually. The worker is with one and the employer is with one, but they needed to be in the room together for this dialogue. Does the government have other ways of consulting where everyone is in the same room? That’s the first question.
Then, I would like you to expand on the unintended consequences with regard to the creation of the council. Dialogue doesn’t mean you’re going to make policy or the physical framework. You’re just having more consultation or social dialogue. Do I need to repeat it?
Ms. Nandy: No.
Senator Burey: I’m sorry. I may have needed it for myself. Okay. Go ahead.
Ms. Nandy: Thank you, senator, for the questions. In terms of the first question, if I understood correctly, are there opportunities in which the government or the commission brings together a wide group of stakeholders to discuss issues related to EI — that’s the question, right?
Senator Burey: I wanted to specifically say that you have employers and workers in the same room, and not just with their separate constituents.
Ms. Nandy: The example that I spoke about during my opening remarks is but one of those examples where, in recent days, there have been consultations led by the government — co-led, actually, by both commissioners — where that exactly happened: Employer groups, labour groups, community associations, parent and family associations and other experts on EI all got together. It was during the pandemic, so it wasn’t in person — they weren’t in the same room — but there were national and regional virtual round tables. There were targeted workshops. There were multiple opportunities over a period of two years. There were 35 national and regional round tables with over 200 stakeholders providing diverse perspectives on EI — they all met together and spoke about the issues that were of importance to them during these consultations.
Yes, there are opportunities for multiple constituents — those who are interested in EI issues and labour market issues — to come together to provide their perspectives on EI.
Senator Burey: Could I probe a little before we move on? We heard yesterday, however, that these engagements are time-limited, and this legislation would enshrine this continuing framework and collaboration in order to hear on a continuous basis — not a one-off basis. Could you expand or comment on that?
Ms. Nandy: It’s accurate to say that there is currently no joint employer-labour group that meets on a regular basis to discuss EI. I think that is an accurate statement.
Senator Burey: Are there any other comments? I also wanted a response for the unintended consequences. What was your expansion on that?
Ms. Nandy: In terms of the unintended consequences, again, it would require more detail as to the policy intent of some of the proposed legislative amendments, and we cannot speak in detail about that today. On the face of it, and on the read of it, there is a reporting function that is — in legislation — the responsibility of the minister to make policy improvements and policy changes with regard to EI, and to report out on those policy changes. If, as described in the draft legislation, the council were also to have a role with regard to issuing advice or public opinions or reporting, there could be some perceived conflict.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much.
Senator Dasko: Thank you for being here today, everyone.
My question builds on Senator Burey’s comments, and you spoke about the history of tripartite consultation that the department or commission — whatever structure — has undertaken, even though you don’t have a current structure that does that. However, you clearly have the ability to set up almost any consultation process that you wish to do. My understanding is that, under regulations or through other mechanisms, you’re able to do this.
Why would there be a need for legislation? Why would this have to go into legislation? You have the ability to do this — to set up almost anything — under your current regulations and powers. That’s correct, is it not?
Ms. Nandy: Regulation-making authority for the EI program, as I described in my opening remarks, rests with the commission on the approval of the Governor-in-Council. That is just to clarify how regulations are made with regard to EI.
As one point of clarification, senator, in the current and existing EI program, there is tripartite representation. It is through the commission itself.
Senator Dasko: Correct.
Ms. Nandy: That principle has not gone by the wayside. It was a founding principle of the program back in 1940, and it continues to this day. It has evolved, as has the governance of the program, but the EI program continues to have that very important function of tripartite engagement. In the current form, it is through the commission.
Senator Dasko: What I’m saying is that you can engage in almost any type of consultation you want. If you want to go ahead, you can consult. You spoke about the conference you had, and Mr. Guénette spoke about regular consultation with the commission representative who represents business. I’m just asking this: Why would there be a need for legislation when you have these powers already?
Ms. Nandy: That’s right. The government can decide how it chooses to consult, as can the commission and the commissioners. They must consult and engage with their respective constituents, but, to the best of my understanding, how they choose to do so — the forums, the venues and the frequency — is at the commissioners’ discretion.
Senator Dasko: So why would there be a need for legislation, then?
Ms. Nandy: I don’t think I’m in a position to answer that.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: I would like to further explore your comments around the potential unintended impacts of this legislation on the minister’s responsibility to determine policy. You said the minister makes policy changes and reports out. That’s his function; it’s part of his role.
When you look at this legislation, what clarification is needed to ensure that the concern you raised is not realized? That forces you, unfortunately, to identify where you specifically think the problem arises, and to say how this could be fixed.
Steven Coté, Executive Director, Employment Insurance Modernization Policy and Planning, Skills and Employment Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: Maybe I’ll jump in for one second here.
One of the issues being alluded to is the impact on the fiscal framework of the government. There is the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, but the Minister of Finance also has a role in establishing the EI premium rate, because the EI Operating Account is a notional tracking account that is consolidated into the books of the federal government through the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In some of these decision-making powers, there are cost implications to it.
In some of these roles, part of the clarification to be made is an advisory role, but also assuring the role that the minister takes in terms of working with the Minister of Finance — ensuring the costs of the program are thought about in terms of how they impact the public accounts of the government.
Senator Moodie: I’m sorry. Are you saying there is going to be an additional cost to having a tripartite council? This legislation provides what additional —
Mr. Coté: No, I’m talking about the role of the minister in making decisions with respect to policy, because they have implications for cost with respect to how they’re rolled up into the program — not the cost of the council itself.
Senator Moodie: Linking back to an unintended consequence of this council, again, I’m not seeing what the unintended impact might be. Can you clarify that for us? Clearly, the minister’s decisions impact cost. Yes, that’s his role and purview, but in terms of the unintended consequences —
Ms. Nandy: Going back to the costs, again, based on our understanding of what’s in Bill S-244, the proposed Governor-in-Council appointees would not be paid, so there would be no cost from that. However, based upon the department’s experience with establishing other advisory committees, there might be associated costs with establishing a council like this related to its establishment and its ongoing administration, such as corporate and secretariat costs.
At this point, we cannot confirm that. We would need more detail. Again, based on our experience, as a department, with establishing advisory committees, there might be unintended costs.
Senator Petitclerc: I want to rotate back to Senator Dasko’s question. If my understanding is correct, the commissioner has the capacity or liberty to organize such conferences, like the one you mentioned, with all parties being at the table. Am I correct about this: If the workers’ representatives or employers feel the need for such a conference to happen, they don’t have the authority to make it happen?
Ms. Nandy: Thank you, senator, for the question.
In regard to what I was referring to, those consultations were government consultations on the modernization of EI, which were held in 2021-22.
[Translation]
I wasn’t talking about specific conferences, but engagement with the stakeholders. I don’t have the mandates or terms of reference for the two commissioners, but I think the fact that they must represent their constituents is part of the appointment process for their roles as commissioners.
[English]
In that regard, that is part of the appointment process, and that is what they represent.
The reference that I was making is that it is up to the discretion of the commissioners — individually — to engage with their constituents. Currently, it happens bilaterally. They do that through their annual forums and other regular meetings.
As I said before, currently, there is no permanent joint forum for employer and labour groups to come together, but the government has given opportunities for that to happen in the past. One currently doesn’t exist, but it’s an open question.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
What I’m trying to understand is this: Since the commissioner and the government have some discretion and authority, if they feel the desire to have everybody at the table, they can make it happen, but if the workers’ representatives and/or employers want to initiate the same thing, they don’t have that discretion.
My thinking is that the council could be that space to give them — I don’t want to use “power” — consultation. But am I correct that, depending upon who wants to initiate that kind of conversation, not everybody can make it happen? I guess that’s my simple question.
Ms. Nandy: It’s fair to say that a formalized advisory body, such as described in Bill S-244, would provide a forum for those kinds of conversations. Based on my understanding, that membership is limited. It is not every individual — every Canadian — who may have a view on EI who would be a party or actually represented on that council. It would be equal members, just based upon my reading of Bill S-244.
To your point, there may still be individuals or organizations whose voices may not be council members. There have been different forums of advisory committees in the past. Some have larger membership, broader distribution and involvement of the government as part of those advisory committees over the history of the EI program. There are many different ways of doing this.
Bill S-244 presents a particular model. I think that is what you are here to discuss today.
Senator Petitclerc: That is helpful. Thank you.
Senator Bellemare: I learned a lot while listening to you about the role of the commissioners.
You may tell me if I am right or wrong: From what I understand, that tripartism in EI is combined with the deputy minister and the two commissioners. That’s it.
When you consult the parties, you consult the commissioners who have the role of getting ideas from their stakeholders. They are appointed because they have been referred by employers or by manpower — labour. Their main task is to receive phone calls, mainly from business; sometimes they have a problem with EI, or labour who has problems with some conflict because of EI. They can meet, but they don’t have a secretariat on their own. It is the commission under the office of the deputy minister.
Am I correct in saying that tripartism in EI is the commissioners, the deputy minister and the associate deputy minister — these four people — as it is described in the actual law?
Ms. Nandy: Yes, I think it is accurate to say that the principle of tripartite engagement is embodied in the commission that has the Deputy Minister of Employment and Social Development Canada and the Senior Associate Deputy Minister of Employment and Social Development Canada and Chief Operating Officer for Service Canada as the chair and vice-chair of the commission, and then the EI Commissioner for Workers and Commissioner for Employers.
That being said, there are mechanisms by which both commissioners use that tripartite mechanism to provide valuable feedback and information that represent the diverse perspectives of these stakeholders, which helps inform policy work.
Senator Bellemare: We are all involved in training because many things are going on and skills development is very important. The government addressed that issue in Budget 2019, I think, with the Canada training credit, which it included in the budget provision on EI. When that happened, did the commissioners get involved? Did they do pre-consultation before that announcement was made?
Ms. Nandy: I am sorry, but I would not be able to speak to that today.
Senator Bellemare: Thank you.
Senator Osler: Unless I am mistaken, Bill S-244 does not contain language specifying the frequency of meetings of the council.
What would Employment and Social Development Canada consider best practice for the frequency of meetings of a council such as this one?
Ms. Nandy: Unfortunately, senator, I do not think that we are in a position to respond to that question.
Again, there are many forms that advisory committees can take. There are many forms that tripartite advisory committees have taken over the history of the program. I would have to dig into their individual records of how frequently they met, and how successful they were in bringing issues forward related to EI, in order to provide a proper answer. I do not think that we have that information.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Are there any further questions?
This brings this panel to an end. I thank the witnesses for your testimony today, and for answering senators’ questions.
Colleagues, for your information, we will be proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill on Thursday, December 7.
(The committee adjourned.)