Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, this item is adjourned in the name of Senator Housakos, and I ask for leave of the Senate that, following my intervention, it be re-adjourned in Senator Housakos’s name for the balance of his time.

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.

(Debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Manning, seconded by the Honourable Senator Batters, for the second reading of Bill S-249, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: I wish to ask Senator Gold a question, if he will take one.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Gold.

I am not a member of the Official Languages Committee. I don’t have the deep knowledge of the bill that my colleagues — who have spoken — have.

I understand what you have said: The reference to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language in the bill is not a political accommodation or a substantive accommodation; it’s a reference to fact and context. So far, I think I interpreted you correctly. I’m not a lawyer — I’m trying to explain it to myself in plain language.

My question is as follows: Does this set a precedent for future legislation to reference a provincial law that applies only to one province within a federal law that applies to all others?

Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Boyer. Thank you for never giving up, and thank you for your leadership. As a member of the Senate Human Rights Committee, I heard the witness statements. You know how it tore at us; how it tore at me. This bill is an important next step.

At the Senate Human Rights Committee, we heard witness testimony that there was a case being brought by certain witnesses, I believe, against a provincial court. I would like to ask you what the status of that case is and what implications the judgment in that case will have on your bill. Thank you.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Would the Honourable Senator Boyer take a question, please?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Will Senator Wallin take another question?

Senator Omidvar: Thank you very much, Senator Wallin.

I want to commend you for your ongoing and consistent advocacy for advanced requests. Your comments brought back a rush of memories going back to 2016-17 when we debated and studied Bill C-14. There was a lot of emotion. There was also a lot of substance.

This issue of advanced request, I want to ask you, is it unique or new in Canada? There are other jurisdictions — most famously, the Netherlands, but also Belgium and Switzerland — that have physician-assisted dying laws.

Is there anything that you can share with us from your study of this issue from other jurisdictions and what can we learn? Have they had some experience here that could inform us?

Senator Omidvar: Senator Cordy, I support the bill. I recognize that all animals on this planet are God’s creatures. From that value base I support the bill, but there is also a question of public safety. I recall — I think it was 10 years ago — when private ownership of dangerous pets resulted in the death of two twin boys in New Brunswick when a 100-pound pet snake came crashing down the ceiling and smothered the seven-year-old boys.

Will your bill regulate private ownership of potentially dangerous animals, or is that a provincial issue?

Senator Omidvar: Senator Cordy, maybe I missed it in Senator Klyne’s speech. Which committee does the sponsor want this bill to go to for study?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Will Senator Cordy take a question?

Senator Omidvar: Senator McCallum, thank you for weighing in on this matter. I agree with you and Senator Patterson completely that this provision is a relic of the past. But it is also an expression, I believe, of searching for some kind of attachment to the place that people come from.

Whilst property ownership and net worth is a relic of the past, do you believe that the other requirements — age, citizenship, residency and merit-based criteria — demonstrate enough of an attachment to the place we are supposed to represent?

I agree with you that net worth has nothing to do with attachment, but is there something else that you would like to see represent attachment or are you satisfied with simply removing that requirement and not replacing it with anything else?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Yes, please.

Would Senator McCallum take a short question?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Would Honourable Senator Wells take another question?

Senator Omidvar: Senator Wells, in truth I should have asked this question to the sponsor of the bill but I missed my time. I am forgetting exactly what happened, but perhaps you can help me to understand this.

With these new added authorities to search based upon reasonable general concern, what does the bill say about oversight of the CBSA officers, or do we simply have to wait for the independent oversight bill that is expected sometime?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I concluded my remarks yesterday, and brought them in just before 4 o’clock. But I understand that Senator Lankin has a question, and I’m more than happy to answer it or other questions.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Lankin. I appreciate the question because I know of your long experience in the charity sector. You led the United Way in my wonderful city and led it ably for many years, so you come from a point of experience and concern. I’m grateful for your question.

On the terminology, “expenditure responsibility” in the U.S. versus “resource accountability,” in this proposal, I have been advised by Canada’s top charity lawyers, who advised me that the term “resource accountability” is more appropriate for the Canadian context.

Now, this is a private member’s bill, so if and when it is passed — and I certainly hope it is passed, honourable senators, with your support — one of the processes that will follow will be consultations by the CRA on how far we go with resource accountability. Is it just money? Is it more than money?

While I hope it’s a more fulsome expression of what we mean, it is at the same time a strong underlying expression of accountability, whether it is limited to money or whether it expands to technology, space, staff, et cetera. I hope that answers your question.

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, for Senator Mercer, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ngo, seconded by the Honourable Senator Patterson:

That the Senate note that, by adopting the Journey to Freedom Day Act on April 23, 2015, and taking into account the first two elements of the preamble of the said Act, the Parliament of Canada unequivocally recognized violations of:

(a)the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam and its protocols (Paris Peace Accords); and

(b)the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam; and

That the Senate urge the Government of Canada to call upon six or more of the current parties to the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam, which include Canada, France, Hungary, Indonesia, Poland, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, amongst others, to agree to the reconvention of the International Conference on Viet-Nam pursuant to Article 7(b) of the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam in order to settle disputes between the signatory parties due to the violations of the terms of the Paris Peace Accords and the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam.