Department of Employment and Social Development Act—Employment Insurance Act

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at the third reading of Bill S-244, dealing with the creation of the employment insurance council.

Colleagues, I want to start by thanking our colleague Senator Bellemare for the work she has done on behalf of employers and workers in putting this bill forth. However, as she said in her speech at third reading, “This is not my bill. This bill was built with the employers and the union organizations.”

Simply, senators, this bill is a consensus agreement between employers and employee groups, who are the only two parties that fund the Employment Insurance system in this country. Bill S-244 is not some grand public policy idea dreamed up by one senator to do good for workers and business. It is just the opposite; it is a common-sense policy that was developed over five years from the bottom up by the very stakeholders this bill is about — workers and employers. The bottom-up, not top-down, approach in developing the bill is emblematic of what it hopes to achieve.

Colleagues, this bill simply creates an advisory table to give workers and employers, who fund the Employment Insurance system, an opportunity to discuss shared labour market issues and come up with consensus solutions for the government to consider in developing policies that aim to help workers and employers.

The principles of social dialogue and tripartism are ones that I strongly believe in. That is why I fully support Senator Bellemare’s bill, and I would like to take a few minutes to tell you why.

Senators, I want to start by posing a few questions I would like you to consider in deciding on the merits of this bill: Do you believe that promoting dialogue among groups with different opinions helps solve problems? Is providing an opportunity to develop relationships between labour market partners that foster trust and mutual understanding good or bad for public policy? Last but not least, are bottom-up solutions more likely to succeed than the top-down approaches?

I believe if you view this bill through the lens of these questions, you will see the merit in what it proposes to do — simply create a tripartite advisory council that promotes social dialogue to find common ground on how to deal with the increasingly complex issues we face in the labour market and the economy.

For myself, I have lived the experience of social dialogue, representing workers and working in tripartite structures for decades. I can attest to the benefit of them for not only workers but employers and governments.

Senators, the reality is that the economy continues to change in dynamic ways that we don’t quite understand to a large extent. We are also seeing labour market transition measures that are happening within certain regions that are more profound than in other parts of the country, and workers are trying to figure out where they are going to work and what their skill level is.

In attempting to address some of these issues, the federal government transfers large sums of money to provinces through Part II of the Employment Insurance fund. The employers and workers who fund that money know transfers are happening, but there has been no conversation with them and the federal government about the goals of these funds, let alone the programs being developed to achieve them.

I think Senator Bellemare’s bill is forcing a very fundamental question to be asked: Shouldn’t workers and employers who fund government programs designed to help them have a say in their stated goals and design? Every worker and employer group I have spoken with believes they should have a say and the advisory council that this bill would create is the best way to do that.

I want to remind colleagues that this bill is asking for something we used to have: a dialogue at a national level. It is not a new thing. By the way, people are having dialogues without the government.

Just this past March, Senator Bellemare, along with Senator Cardozo and I, hosted a skills round table with representatives of major employee and employer groups. You think the government would want to be in the room, taking part in the dialogue with these stakeholders. Every major employer and employee group in the country were present. They were all in agreement — they support this bill and want it passed.

I believe the Quebec model of social dialogue has been mentioned in debate and in the committee study of the bill. That is a model we can learn a lot from because it is one that has survived changes in government because the Quebec social partners insisted that it did. They wanted to keep the dialogue going for the greater interests of workers, companies and the province.

Federal governments come and go, but the table where there is dialogue disappears every time the government changes. I think that is wrong.

Other successful European governments have shown us that the tripartite system based on social dialogue is the foundation of a successful economy. I find it somewhat ironic that I am giving this speech today in support of encouraging government to institutionalize social dialogue in the Employment Insurance system through a public bill at the same time that I am the sponsor of a government bill — Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act — that has at its core the institutionalizing of a tripartite-plus jobs partnership council to provide the government advice through the stated principle of encouraging social dialogue.

In the case of Bill C-50, the government believes that social dialogue is a must if we want the transition to a low-carbon economy to succeed for workers, businesses and communities. I would argue the same is true for Bill S-244 in that social dialogue is critical for workers and businesses to succeed in the future economy.

In conclusion, colleagues, I want to thank Senator Bellemare again for the work she has done on this bill and for her efforts to promote social dialogue in the Employment Insurance system to make it more fair, effective and accountable to its stakeholders, workers and employers.

From artificial intelligence to climate change, the world of work is undergoing transformative changes in this country and throughout the world. We will need the collective and cooperative efforts of all the tripartite partners to ensure we have the right policies that are effective, fair and equitable to all. Strong social dialogue will be key to ensuring that happens by providing a formalized process through an advisory council for workers and employers to give meaningful input to government.

As I said in my second reading speech, I firmly believe that only solutions that are widely shared and underpinned by successful social dialogue will be truly effective and equitable to all. That is because social dialogue helps build relationships that, in turn, not only help foster trust but also ownership and accountability by all stakeholders involved in the creation of policies that directly affect them.

Colleagues, based on my over 25 years representing workers, I believe Bill S-244 will strengthen — not weaken — the Employment Insurance system. It seeks to build trust and accountability to find practical, real-world solutions that make sense for all parties. Senators, worker and employer representatives from the Canadian Labour Congress to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have been crystal clear — they want to see this bill passed.

When you have lockstep agreement from parties that often disagree, parliamentarians and the government should not only welcome it but do everything in our power to support it. That is why, colleagues, I ask you to support passing this bill. Thank you so much.