S-244: Better Collaboration Between Employers, Employees, & Union Representatives is Good for All

On June 1, 2023, Senator Omidvar spoke to Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council). Watch:

Senator Omidvar: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council).

I would like to thank the sponsor, Senator Bellemare, for bringing this legislation forward. I support the principle of this legislation and encourage senators to move it to committee for further study.

I think we can all agree that increased and better collaboration between employers, employees and their union representatives is good for all, particularly as they are significant stakeholders in the Employment Insurance system.

Senator Bellemare uses the terminology “social dialogue” to define that process, and social dialogue in labour relations encompasses the process of communication between employers; employees; their representatives, such as unions; and sometimes the government on issues related to labour policies, employment and working conditions. It is based on the principles of cooperation, mutual respect and the search for common goals.

The outcome is more effective and more harmonious relations where both employers and employees have a voice in the decision-making process on issues that affect them both. It takes place in various forms, including consultations, collective bargaining and dialogues between government, employers and employees.

Colleagues, I wish to draw your attention to best practices from other parts of the world. The Nordic countries have a strong history of collaboration between trade unions and employers that has produced high rates of unionization and lower levels of income inequality. In France, social dialogue between unions, employer organizations and the government is used to negotiate policies and regulations.

In Germany — a country I know well — they have requirements for employees to participate in corporate decision making. In German, this is called Mitbestimmung or “codetermination.” As researchers Bennet Berger and Elena Vaccarino from Bruegel have pointed out, codetermination is deeply rooted in the tradition of German corporate governance, and it has existed in its current form since the Codetermination Act of 1976. It has an explicit social dimension: As the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled, codetermination on the company level is meant to introduce equal participation of shareholders and employees in corporate decision making, and complements the economic legitimacy of a firm’s management with a social dimension. Codetermination is, therefore, about a democratic decision-making process at the firm level, as well as the equality of capital and work.

I think the proof is in the pudding: We know that Germany is the economic heartbeat of Europe. We know that German companies and workers have not suffered. In fact, they’ve gained because of codetermination.

Researchers have pointed out that studies from Germany’s experience with codetermination indicate that it leads to less short-termism in corporate decision making and much higher levels of pay equality, while other studies demonstrate positive results on productivity and innovation.

Colleagues, Senator Bellemare is using the spirit and the practice of social dialogue in the creation of the employment insurance council. We know that Employment Insurance is an equal proposition where employees and employers pay into the system. Therefore, it begs to reason that both should have a voice in how it is determined, how the rates are set and what the future of the system will be. I believe that this is overdue.

The bill outlines the composition of this new employment insurance council, as well as its roles and responsibilities. I agree with much of what the sponsor has included here: five representatives from labour and five representatives from employers being mandatory on the advisory council.

In addition, Senator Bellemare proposes an observing group to include Indigenous representation. I’m not entirely clear why Indigenous representation is an observing group, and why they are not in the proposed employment insurance council. I suggest that this is something the committee should study. Also, it’s not mentioned how other equity-deserving groups are included in this council. I believe that this is a factor that should be focused on in committee.

There is another part of the bill that has not received much attention in this chamber. The bill amends the Department of Employment and Social Development to pull together the powers, the duties and the functions of the Canada Employment Insurance Commission which, right now, are sprinkled throughout the act — you have to go on a fishing expedition to find them. Senator Bellemare’s bill brings some efficiency by putting them together in one place.

Included in this are monitoring and assessing the assistance provided under the Employment Insurance Act; reporting annually on its assessment to the minister, who must table it in Parliament; reviewing and approving policies related to the administration of employment benefits or support measures under the Employment Insurance Act; making regulations under this act; engaging the services of an actuary, as described in subsection 28(4), to perform actuarial forecasts; setting the Employment Insurance premium rate for each year, in accordance with section 66 of the Employment Insurance Act; et cetera.

Frankly, I’m agnostic on this list of duties, but I do believe it needs to be studied with a great deal of thoroughness at committee.

I believe this is an important bill. I think it should be sent to committee to be studied. Colleagues have already spoken about it, and I urge you to send it to committee as soon as you can. Thank you.