HRPD Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 12, 1999

• 1536

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.)): We have with us today Minister of Labour Claudette Bradshaw. She is accompanied today by Warren Edmondson, assistant deputy minister, labour, and head of the federal mediation and conciliation service; Gerry Blanchard, director general of program operations and labour; Carole Chauvin-Evans, director of the federal workers' compensation service; and Guy Tremblay, director general, financial services, financial and administrative services.

I know we're all eager to hear what Minister Bradshaw has to say today. In fact she confessed she wanted to chair her own meeting.

Please begin. You have the floor.

The Honourable Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Madame la présidente, members of the committee, I join you today with great pleasure, especially since this is my first opportunity to address my parliamentary colleagues and this committee as Minister of Labour. As you also know, I used to sit on this committee, so

[Translation]

I am very happy to be here today because I miss all of you a lot.

[English]

If there's one thing I miss being minister, it's my HRDC committee.

Many of you will no doubt recognize some of the labour program officials with me today. My officials will be pleased to provide further clarification, if required.

Estimates by their very nature are about names and numbers that spell out in some detail the programs and benefits we administer. What is evident in the details is the broad mandate of the labour program, touching as it does the working lives of about one million men and women. Even though they represent only 10% of the Canadian workforce, it is a key 10%. These are people working in transportation, communications, banking and grain handling—sectors that go to the economic heart of our nation.

[Translation]

The mandate of the Labour Program is, as you know, to promote a safe, equitable and fair workplace environment, one that contributes to the social and economic well-being of all Canadians, and to encourage Canadian workplace values on the international front.

It is this mandate that I want to discuss with you today.

If the last decade of this century has been about anything, it has been about change and change management. We are being forced to re-examine our long-established assumptions about work, jobs, and family. New vocabularies are cropping up to describe technologies and work styles that were unheard of just a few years ago.

So, how will the Labour Program adapt? First, from my program's perspective, we need a modern Labour Code, one that will help meet the needs of the 21st century.

As you know, we are part way there. Last year, I know many of you debated Bill C-19, the passage of which modernized the collective bargaining rules found in Part I of the Canada Labour Code. These amendments, which took effect on January 1 of this year, were the product of extensive consultations with unions, employers and a wide cross-section of labour-relations experts.

• 1540

[English]

Implicit in those consultations was a common understanding: the acceptance of the basic democratic principle of the right of employees to engage in collective bargaining, and a recognition of its values as the cornerstone of our industrial relations system.

In fact it is the collective bargaining system that has always been best placed to respond to the pressures of rapid change that has demanded action on a number of fronts, including meeting productivity challenges in a world of globalized economies, and reaching a quality of work and income distribution solutions for work forces in transition.

Specifically, the new legislation establishes the Canadian industrial relations board, clarifies the rights and obligations of labour and management during a work stoppage, and includes a requirement to maintain essential services to protect public health and safety during a dispute.

We are confident that the part I amendments are the right changes at the right time. We will continue to encourage labour and management in their cooperative efforts to develop good relations and constructive collective bargaining practices.

Incidentally—and I will close my comments on part I with this observation—strikes and lockouts in the 1990s have been at their lowest level in the past 20 years.

[Translation]

In the federal sector alone, some 40 workers a year die on the job. Another 60 thousand suffer injury and illness. Behind each incident there is pain and suffering for the victims and uncertainty for their families. Nationwide, in all jurisdictions, the economic costs of workplace accidents - although hard to measure precisely - are estimated to exceed one million person-days lost and $10 billion a year.

It is for these reasons that we are looking to update Part II of the Canada Labour Code which deals with occupational safety and health.

Much of the necessary consultation work to amend Part II - consultation with our partners in business and labour - has already taken place. And it is my determination to bring before you in the fall sitting a comprehensive set of changes that will provide updated rules and regulations governing safe conduct at the work site.

Among other things, these regulations will demand greater accountability on the part of industry and labour for their own safety and health. For who can know better what needs to be done than those on the ground, doing the work.

We are also looking at possible updates to Part III of the Code, which deals with labour standards.

[English]

I want to now turn briefly to two items that speak to the subject of fairness in the workplace. The first matter concerns the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. As you know, the purpose of the act is to ensure that workers on federal construction projects receive a fair return for their work.

One of my first tasks as the new minister was to respond to the recommendation of the Stanley report. The report recommended that fair wage schedules in the construction industry be reinstated, we adopt provincial hours of work standards, and place a time limit on complaints. I have accepted those recommendations as reasonable and just, and will reinstate fair wage schedules in the fall.

I concede that not all employers are happy with this decision, especially those from the non-union sector. I understand their arguments, but I am also of the firm belief that these schedules prevent abuse by, among other things, taking wages out of the bidding process. They create a level playing field, set a federal example of fair practice, and help avoid a race to the bottom in the setting of wage rates.

[Translation]

The other fairness issue I wanted to raise is my commitment to employment equity and the legislation that backs up that commitment. We now have a 13-year track record since the first Employment Equity Act was put in place. Over that time, we have come to find that both the principle and practice of inclusion really work. Having equity practices in place makes good business.

The principle is pretty simple. Fair representation in the workplace to those traditionally denied it: for women; for those with disabilities; for visible minorities and aboriginal peoples. It is a principle to which, I believe, all fair-minded Canadians subscribe.

• 1545

The question is often asked: does employment equity work? Employers have told us that in fact it is good for their bottom line and that having a diverse workforce can give them a competitive edge.

We continue to evaluate the effectiveness of the Act, of course, through employers' annual reports and our own evaluations. Furthermore, the next parliamentary review of its operations comes up in 2001.

Of course, legislation alone will not get the job done. However, with the legislative ground rules firmly in place, we must continue to be proactive in our efforts to encourage employers to do the right thing,

[English]

which, it turns out, is also the smart thing.

Finally, I would like to talk about our international responsibilities. We are working to ensure that workers' rights are protected in the face of increasing global competition. We do this on the world stage through the auspices of the International Labour Organization, and in more recent years in the North American context, through our participation in the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation and the Canada-Chile Agreement on Labour Cooperation. These agreements encourage partnership and cooperation on labour issues, with the goals of promoting workers' rights and raising living standards.

Today I want to focus on one of the most troubling aspects of the international labour scene, and that is child labour. I am pleased to say that as part of its continued campaign against child labour, the ILO will adopt, at its next conference in June of this year, a new convention and recommendation aimed at eliminating the worst forms of labour you would scarcely believe possible in the last years of the 20th century. I am talking about the sale and trafficking of children, forced labour, debt bondage and child prostitution, to name just a few of the horrific situations in which these children find themselves.

We plan to be a voice of influence when this issue comes up for discussion in Geneva next month. In the meantime, we have been consulting with our provincial counterparts, as well as with workers, employers and non-government organizations. These consultations will assist us at the ILO conference in June.

In the final analysis, workplaces that are cooperative, safe, and equitable make sense, both from a fairness and an economic point of view. Creating such workplaces should be our common objective.

Our successes have been built and remain dependent upon collaborative relationships with our partners, private and public sector employers, labour unions, not-for-profit organizations, the people on the front lines of the world of work, and the people who run businesses—in short, with those best placed to advise us on their needs for the 21st century.

Next week, as in previous years, we, along with our provincial and international partners, will celebrate North American Occupational Safety and Health Week. Next year the labour program will turn 100 years old—a century of being in the business of helping Canadian labour and industry clients work safely, fairly, and collaboratively. That tradition continues as we move into the next century.

Thank you. I will be glad to take any questions you might have.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister Bradshaw. You have many fans you've left behind, obviously.

We'll begin our rounds of questions with Mr. Johnston, for a ten-minute round.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Bradshaw, for your presentation.

In March 1998 your department prepared a discussion paper called “The Consultation of Federal Labour Boards”, which basically recommended the consolidation of the Canada Industrial Relations Board, the Artists and Producers Relations Tribunal, and the Public Service Staff Relations Board. That study went on to say that they estimated a saving of between $3 million and $4 million annually. I'd like to know what progress has been made. I think I asked that question last year when the minister was here. I wonder what progress has been made since that time toward the merging of the administration of these boards.

• 1550

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: To answer your question, when I came in as minister my first meeting with the department was on what we needed to do. The first thing we needed to do was to proclaim part I. The second thing was to work on an industrial relations board. The third thing was fair wages. And the fourth thing on that schedule was the amalgamation of the boards.

We are looking at it. We have written a letter to see if the interest is there. As you know, it also involves other departments. So we're waiting for a response to our correspondence. We haven't received a response yet, but as soon as we do we'll be acting on it.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Okay, we'll look forward to that.

You also made reference to implementation of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. Can you tell us what came out of the pilot project that was undertaken in Alberta in regard to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act? What was the result of that?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: As you know, that project wasn't really successful, and that's why we appointed Mr. Stanley. As soon as I became minister, we wanted to look at the fair wages issue once more. We knew there would be some contradiction to the fair wage issue.

We hired Statistics Canada to look at fair wage schedules in the different provinces. Some provinces had none. Other provinces had some, but they dated back to 1974. Statistics Canada is doing that research now. Once that research is done, we then hope to be able to put together a reference committee where we would have business as well as unions and discuss it with them fully.

I have to say to you also that I've met with several provincial ministers. One was the provincial minister of Alberta, and we had a good discussion on fair wages. His reaction to our discussion was, “Well, when you bring it to the table, I won't turn blue”. Therefore I'm assuming that we are going to be able to work together with the Province of Alberta on this issue.

Warren, do you have any other comments on fair wages? That's it?

Mr. Dale Johnston: I wonder if the minister or the department can give us an idea of what the cost of that pilot project in Alberta was, and how much has been spent on pursuing fair wages and hours of work up to this point.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: I can get you the details on that. We don't have the amounts here, but we'll make note of that and get back to you with the costs up to now and also the cost of the Alberta study.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you.

If I could switch back to part I of the Canada Labour Code, specifically section 87.7, I know the government was certainly under the impression that section 87.7 was going to solve the problems as to stoppage of grain movement because of work disruptions. But as saw early this spring, it did not apply to enough people and it actually turned into a work stoppage and Canada's grain shipments were again held up.

• 1555

What does the department have in mind to do to ensure that grain shipments aren't held up again, bearing in mind that it has a tremendously negative effect on the entire economy of Canada? It's not just the agricultural industry that suffers from this; I submit that it's really our reputation as well.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: As you know, we certainly take the issue of grain movement very seriously. I think we have to give the Canada Labour Code a chance. We've just put it in. But the other thing we need to look at here is that one of the important things when there's a dispute is that you give the opportunity to both parties to be able to go through the process that's in place. Having the grain movement going during a strike is important for us, because we feel that then the two parties are going to sit down and settle their dispute without a strike or hopefully without back-to-work legislation. Back-to-work legislation is not an easy thing for a minister of labour to do. I'd really like us to give the bill a chance to work and see if it's going to work.

I realize what you're saying. The last time there was a stoppage in the grain movement, and as you know, we ran into some difficulty with it.

With 10% of our employees under the Canada Labour Code, I'm hoping that if ever there's a dispute, we'll see the dispute being able to be handled because of the decision we made in the Canada Labour Code.

The Chair: Will that be the last question for this round?

Mr. Dale Johnston: In that case, Madam Chairman, I'll defer to my colleague and hope I'll get an opportunity to come back to it.

The Chair: We'll have another round.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Madam Bradshaw, across our fair country of Canada there are some native bands that are resisting attempts by the unions to organize band members. I guess the Nisga'a would be a case in point of that. For example, they want to establish their own labour code that would supposedly supersede the Canada Labour Code. So will the Canada Labour Code prevail, or will we see separate laws for selected bands across the country?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: All the aboriginal communities are under the Canada Labour Code. The only way an aboriginal community would not be under the Canada Labour Code is if they brought it to court. But as it stands now, every community is under the Canada Labour Code.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: With some of the provisions of the Nisga'a agreement, you don't see that changing at all?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Not at all.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That will continue to be the case?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: The only way they could change it is if they brought the issue to court. As far as I'm concerned as Minister of Labour, they are to follow the Canada Labour Code.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, do you have one last quick question?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: No.

[Translation]

The Chair: You have ten minutes, Mr. Rocheleau.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Minister, you mentioned workplace accidents and injuries . You stated that consultations on this matter were nearing completion. How long has the consultation process been going on, who in Canada and Quebec has been consulted and what should we expect from the changes that you will be recommending? You talked about obligations, on the part of industry as well as of the unions. Could you elaborate further?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Thank you for your question.

Consultations on Part II of the code have been ongoing for six years. Employees and employers have been consulted on a number of occasions.

After I was appointed minister, I reviewed the progress made to date and then met personally with employees and employers.

• 1600

I advised them of our plans to update Part II of the Code and asked them if that was what they wanted. I had been told they wanted this, but, like St. Thomas, I had to hear it for myself. I wanted some assurances that everything was going smoothly. Some discussions are, of course, still taking place, but I can tell you that employers and employees have been consulted on a regular basis over the past six years.

If you have other more specific questions, I suggest you direct them to Mr. Blanchard, an official from the department who has worked with the various groups involved for these past six years. He can probably give you much more information and more details about the actual consultations that were held. Before proceeding further, I wanted to be certain that these groups were pleased with the discussions that had taken place thus far and I found that indeed they were.

Mr. Gerry Blanchard (Director General, Operations Labour, Department of Human Resources Development): As mentioned, the consultation process was initiated several years ago. A formal regulatory review committee composed of representatives of both sides worked on over 200 recommended changes. They persisted until both sides were satisfied with the results. There are still some minor details that may need to be ironed out and these may be reviewed when other issues are revisited.

By and large, the minister is correct in stating that both sides recognize the need for changes and support most of the ones that have been proposed. We can't really go into all of the details, because the paper is now before Cabinet. The last series of changes were made primarily to address translation and terminology problems. No major changes were made by our legal advisers.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: When you refer to... [Editor's note: Inaudible]... union, what kind of obligations are you talking about? Have you already made a decision about the changes that lie ahead, or is it too late to propose further changes at this stage?

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: I'm not certain that I understand your question fully. The discussions led to a consensus. There was give and take on both sides. I don't believe that there have been any changes made by our legal advisers since the previous bill was tabled.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: In your presentation, you talked about obligations. What kind of new obligations do you foresee?

For example, after the tragic incident at the Westray Mine, a public inquiry was held. Ms. McDonough looked into this matter and tabled a motion. The matter was investigated from the standpoint of Criminal Code, not Labour Code, violations. Would you care to comment on this? What kind of changes should we expect to see as a result of all this? Amendments to the Labour Code or to the Criminal Code?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: As Mr. Blanchard was saying, it is difficult to provide you with specifics, because there still might be some changes. We are still at the discussion stage. We will also endeavour to adopt a much more proactive and preventive approach in Part II.

As for your question regarding the Westray Mine and the NDP motion, employees are protected by the Labour Code. The employer could be slapped with a $1 million fine and even sent to jail. Therefore, when it comes to health and safety on the job, employees are protected by the Labour Code.

You were wondering whether this was a Labour Code or Criminal Code matter. As far as our responsibilities are concerned, employees are protected.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: You say that the Labour Code needs to be updated. As you know, we updated the Unemployment Insurance Act, which subsequently became the Employment Insurance Act. The effect this has had on workers is well known.

• 1605

You say that the government plans to update the Labour Code to ensure that Canada becomes even more competitive globally. Should social democrats be concerned about these moves and about employee safety? Ensuring the safety of employees can be a costly proposition, as we know, and could result in shareholders getting less than they expected. After all, shareholders are the ones who wield the power.

Should we be concerned? Historically, the Liberal Party of Canada has had rather social democratic leanings. Should we all be vigilant to ensure that the Code is not updated at the expense of small wage earners and workers, as we saw happen in the case of the employment insurance legislation?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: The first group of people I wanted to meet with were union representatives. I wanted assurances that they were satisfied with Part II. I can assure you that they were as eager as we were to see Part II updated as soon as possible so that work could proceed on Part III. I've spoken to both groups and I can assure you that the unions have expressed their satisfaction with the work done thus far.

I wish we could be a little more specific, but there are going to be changes. A politician quickly learns not be too specific Therefore, I won't be giving you specific details of the changes at this time. I can assure you though that I have had discussions with the unions.

There's one other thing. You must remember that my job as Minister of Labour is to protect employees. I must also see to it that industry and the unions come to an agreement. The only guarantee that I can give you today is that unions want us to move forward with our review of Part II. And I appreciate that.

The Chair: You have two minutes remaining.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: I'd like to know if you are familiar with the draft legislation tabled by my colleague Mr. Marceau, the Member for Charlesbourg, on so-called discriminatory, or "orphan" clauses. This issue is the focus of considerable debate in Quebec, and it also affects the federal public service, although this isn't mentioned as often. Both Canada Post and the CBC have included discriminatory or "orphan" clauses in their collective agreements or as part of the hiring process. Do you intend to do this? Are you concerned at all? The federal government has yet to consider this matter and already there is a problem.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: I will answer that question in two parts. First of all, the Department of Labour never gets involved in the collective bargaining process. That is something that takes places between the employee and the employer. It would be difficult for us to get involved in this process.

That being said, I've done some research and I haven't been able to fin any cases at the federal level where questions were asked or complaints filed because this was included in a collective agreement. To my knowledge, there haven't been any incidents of this nature..

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Madam Chair, we've heard that at Canada Post and at the CBC, the inclusion of discriminatory clauses have stirred up some problems. As Minister of Labour, you no doubt have the power to close these loopholes and I urge you to do so. These injustices could be perpetuated.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: As I said, this poses a problem because we are talking about provisions in collective agreements. There's a limit to what I can do as Minister of Labour.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Yes, but through the Labour Code, you can set limitations on what can or cannot be done, as is the case in Quebec where the provisions of the labour code apply even to collective agreements negotiated in the private sector.

The Chair: You can continue during the next round, Mr. Rocheleau.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Thank you.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Fine.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Minister, for being here. It's a pleasure to hear your report. Many of my questions were in fact answered in your introductory remarks.

As you know, I'm very pleased to see the fair wages and hours of work being dealt with. That's my industry, where I come from, and we've been looking forward to this for a long time. Even the language you use in your opening remarks shows a really good understanding of the industry. We need to take wages out of competition and we want contractors to win jobs based on their skill and not on their ability to find cheaper and cheaper labour, because then it does become that downward spiral.

• 1610

Along those lines, though, I'd like to raise one issue that's been brought to my attention. I understand that under the current language in the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act in Nova Scotia they take one and a half times to mean one and a half times the minimum wage. Have you heard this complaint? For instance, if you worked more than 40 hours a week you should be getting time and a half. But the way they're getting around that is by saying it's time and a half minimum wage, not the wage you are earning. Is that something that's come to your attention?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: No, it's not something that has come to my attention. But I can say to you that as soon as our information starts coming in from Statistics Canada, as we put our group together, that could certainly be something they're going to bring to us.

Let me, Mr. Martin, also say to you that on the fair wage issue, when we've been meeting the provinces, I think we need to understand here that the federal government wants to do it because it's the right thing to do. And we are clear with the provinces that we're going to do it, but we're not necessarily going to force you to have to do it. We're making that very clear.

We're doing it, number one, because the members of Parliament on our side really wanted it done, because they didn't feel it was fair. It was the first thing I did when I walked into my office and I met with my deputy and I said we have to do something about fair wages. So for us as Liberals, it's really the fair thing to do.

To answer you about Nova Scotia, we haven't heard anything yet.

I don't know, Warren, if you've heard anything. Do you want to add anything?

Mr. Warren Edmondson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Labour, and Head of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Department of Human Resources Development): No. It really hasn't been brought to our attention.

Mr. Pat Martin: It might not be a matter for this meeting either.

Mr. Warren Edmondson: But I think the principle is that obviously we've adopted provincial wage schedules where they exist and we've adopted provincial hours of work practices where they exist. And at the end of the day, the application or the interpretation of those provincial standards, which will then become federal standards, will be our responsibility. We would then certainly intend to administer them fairly.

Mr. Pat Martin: I understand.

Reading from the estimates, $139.8 million would be the total gross operating expenditure and transfer payments. Am I reading that correctly? This is down from $146.4 million last year. Is that accurate? Your budget has been cut by $7 to 8 million?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: It's something we're going to have to work on.

Mr. Warren Edmondson: I'd ask Mr. Tremblay to explain the numbers.

Mr. Guy Tremblay (Director General, Financial Services, Financial and Administrative Services, Department of Human Resources Development): I'm pleased to be able to provide you some clarification with regard to the apparent decrease as shown in the estimates with regard to the 1999 spending level against the forecast expenditure level for 1998-99.

There are two specific reasons for it. One is in 1998-99 we received supplementary funding to pay for retroactive salaries as a result of the agreement through PSAC for public service employees. That accounted for close to $3 million. And that included the retroactive salaries, including a pay equity component. So that accounts for $3 million of that difference.

For 1999-2000, it has not yet been reflected in our estimates based on the $139 million number you quoted, but will be voted in the first supplementary estimates of this year.

The only other change, about $2 million, which accounts for the difference, is basically a decrease in expected costs associated with federal workers' compensation.

I hope that clarifies it.

Mr. Pat Martin: That does. That's very helpful. Thank you.

Speaking of the child labour issue—and I'm glad you raised this—I was very interested in what they were doing at the ILO last year and am very interested in seeing what they finally come up with this year. But one thing I did notice in the foreign affairs department budget is that the child labour line has been deleted. It was $200,000 scheduled under child labour, and this year there's zero. Seeing as we're just leading up to this and seeing as Canada still hasn't signed convention 138 of the ILO, why would we delete even that paltry amount we were dedicating to child labour? Maybe it's not your area, being foreign affairs.

• 1615

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: I can say to you that we are the ones who have requested money for child labour. That's why it was deleted from there. And hopefully it will come to the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'd be satisfied with that. That would be fine.

The other thing with part II is obviously we're very eager to get part II going, and I'm very glad to hear you say that this fall we will finally see that. I've been taking part in some of that six-year process of developing the terms. And of course in terms of some of the figures you cited, in Manitoba, where I come from, we lose 50,000 days per year to strikes and walkouts, we lose 550,000 person-days to injuries and lost time, accidents on the job. So if we're concerned about Canadian productivity, if we clean up the workplaces, it's the right direction for the country to be going.

The one thing I would raise, and maybe you can answer this for me, is that the Hill staff isn't covered by any health and safety legislation, people who work on Parliament Hill. I think it would be within your authority, Minister, to extend at least basic health and safety protection to the many hundreds of people who work on the Hill. Would you be willing to look into that in the coming year?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: We'll take note of that, Mr. Martin, and look into it for you.

Mr. Pat Martin: I appreciate that.

I have to ask you an obvious question. Where in here do we see a budget line for homelessness?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: I'm Minister of Labour, not minister of homelessness. I want to be fair to the staff from the Department of Labour. They've been very good to me in the last two months. They've given me a little bit of time to work on the homelessness issue. But I feel very strongly that today it's a Department of Labour issue, not a homelessness issue. So if you have any questions to ask me, I'll be glad to meet you after, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: No problem.

In terms of health and safety officers in the field, will there be any change in the allocation of resources to bump up the number of people in the field either reacting to calls or doing proactive inspections?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: We are working on that issue as we speak, and hopefully you'll be fairly happy with us.

Mr. Warren Edmondson: It's an issue that really concerns us as a department. I know the minister has mentioned, on a number of occasions, her concern with the safety and health of workers and the jurisdiction. We're concerned for a whole number of reasons. First, we need to make sure we have the resources we need, the numbers of inspectors. We need to make sure we have skilled inspectors. We are dealing with inspectors, in many cases, who deal with national enterprises, companies like Air Canada and so on, so national consistency is important to us. We spend a lot of time and a lot of resources on training our officers and making sure they understand that what they do in Nova Scotia may very well play out on a work site in British Columbia. The jurisdiction in that respect is fairly special. It's a multifaceted approach to making sure we have the resources on the ground we need. And it's something that with the regional heads of HRDC we're constantly negotiating and discussing, and also with my friends in the financial side of the department, to make sure we have what we need and the minister has what she needs to get the job done.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: And the other thing we have to say here, Mr. Martin, is when you speak about inspectors and you look at the work they're doing and the importance of that work for our employees across this country.... I said to the staff when I first came in that having worked 30 years at Head Start being an executive director, you're not a teacher, you're not a social worker, you're not a home economist, and you're not a cook; you're there to make sure your staff have the tools to work with.

When I became Minister of Labour a lot of people said to me I was lucky to go there because of the staff, and it's so true. You look at the mediation, you look at the conciliators, you look at what they did in labour disputes last year. We want to assure you it is something we're working on because of the important work they're doing out across our country. So we know we need to work on that issue.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you very much.

• 1620

The Chair: Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Minister, for attending. As you know, this is your third labour portfolio. I understand you had two children. So I wish you luck. Experience is what we want here.

I'm sorry you're not going to give us a homeless progress report. I kind of wanted to get caught up on the Mel Lastman dance, but we'll let that go.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Do you want to come to the bingo tonight with me?

Mr. John O'Reilly: No, I'll stick to my script.

As an aside to that, I've always been told to keep the place light, so I try to.

I want to comment, if I may, on Mr. Martin's statement. Some of the Hill employees are covered by their parties under certain harassment-free workplace policies that I worked on bringing in for the Liberal Party, which we adopted and presented to the other parties. I don't think they've taken it up, but I suspect they should.

Although I don't know that we have a general policy on the Hill to protect our employees, we should at least, as parties, adopt that. I think what happens when partisan politics become involved is that nothing seems to happen. Perhaps you could take that under advisement, but I think it's something that's very necessary on the Hill and maybe could be coordinated through your office.

We have a model that would be very easy to work with, which was brought in, actually, by most municipalities throughout Canada that have brought in that type of thing. I think it should be standard in the workplace, so I would look forward to seeing some movement on that.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: I have a suggestion. I don't know, but Ms. Brown can probably tell us if this can be done or not. If the standing committee requested that I look into this, I wonder if it would maybe give me an opening to be able to look at it. I'm concerned, and I couldn't believe that our own staff doesn't have the same protection. So maybe if you could meet and agree and make a request to me, then you would be giving me an opening that I would gladly take.

The Chair: We will take your not-too-subtle hint.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I was surprised when I came on the Hill, as I was when I was in municipal politics, that there is no employee protection standard. It kind of goes from member to member, and sometimes from party to party. I know the NDP employees are unionized, which I think is good; they have some protection through that. But it's kind of a loose type of arrangement.

Particularly with regard to a harassment-free workplace policy, there are lots of them in place. They are well written; they're done by labour lawyers. I'd be more than happy to supply one. I helped bring that in with Jane Stewart when I first came to the Hill.

Getting on to that, I'll certainly bring it in and present it to the chair and we'll deal with it here. But it seems that when you deal with labour or any kind of policy on the Hill, the fact is that there are six security outfits that work on the Hill. Some are unionized; some aren't. Some speak to each other; some don't. They all have this little empire. So it's hard to bring anything onto the Hill because of that. You'll have some problems with that.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: As you know, this is not under my jurisdiction, but if I had the request come to me as Minister of Labour, I would speak to other ministers whose jurisdiction it is under. I would gladly do that for you.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I'll make sure I follow up on that, Madam Chair and Madam Minister.

I've noticed that a lot of media stories are painting Canada as a place with rampant strikes and a high number of days of work missed, and so forth. You touched on it in your presentation. What's the labour program doing to help resolve these problems? I think Canada is on a par with other industrialized countries. Could you confirm that?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Yes. The issue is that when it comes to me as Minister of Labour, a lot of people think we're responsible for a lot more people than we are. So if you ask me that question, as the minister I will answer you this way. The Canada Labour Code is responsible for 10% of the workforce in this country. If you look at that 10%, last year 95% of the disputes were settled without a strike or walkout—95%, that's pretty high. If you look again at the people who are under the Canada Labour Code and you look at the chart, it's gone down in the last 20 years. If they've included municipal strikes and disputes, and provincial disputes and federal disputes, there's a possibility. But as Minister of Labour, if you look at the 10% of the workforce the Canada Labour Code is responsible for, it's not us.

• 1625

Warren, do you want to add something?

Mr. Warren Edmondson: To elaborate a little bit on the question, in terms of what are we doing to try to ensure, to the extent possible, labour peace out there, we probably, in the federal jurisdiction, do as much as if not more than many of the other jurisdictions do in trying to address the issue of relationships between organized labour and business. And we really have three approaches. One is the minister has in place a small $1.6 million fund to have the labour-management partnerships program, which is designed, really, to encourage labour and management to find innovative ways of working together, whether it's in developing marketing strategies or addressing workplace problems, whether it's at the industry level or at the enterprise level. There have been some tremendous projects over the last number of years that companies and unions in the federal and also the provincial jurisdiction have developed using this fund.

We also have in place what we refer to as a preventive mediation program, whereby our mediators, when they're not out there fighting fires, spend a tremendous amount of time training labour and management on alternative dispute resolution in problem-solving techniques, in doing whatever we can to build better relationships, constructing effective labour-management committees.

And thirdly, in the department of HRDC, the sectoral partnerships program is designed to try to bring industry and labour and various sectors together to address long-term human resources needs and training needs to try to anticipate the needs of the industry in the future.

I think with all those vehicles actually we've had tremendous results. Unfortunately, we don't do a very good job of advertising our successes. People, unfortunately, want to read about war and not about peace. It's very difficult to get the message out in terms of the great work we've done in the department in actually building these partnerships.

Mr. John O'Reilly: You should see some of the press of members of Parliament, if you think yours is bad.

The one final question I had is on the mobility of workers. I know there's a dispute on right now between Ontario and Quebec in regard to the mobility of those workers to go from province to province. Surely somewhere along the line this becomes a federal matter. I know it's a provincial dispute and there are two provinces, but I wondered if you had a comment on that.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: As you know, the mobility right is protected under section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our stand on it is that we feel very strongly that people should be able to work in any province they want to in this country. We feel very strongly about that, and it's covered under the Charter of Rights.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Did I ask the minister when she would be willing to look at a review of section 87.7? I think we did discuss that, didn't we? I believe that the previous Minister of Labour said they would be willing to look at a review of section 87.7, which covers grain transportation in particular. And in light of the fact that I feel this section was tested early this spring and found to be lacking, which resulted in the very onerous task of having to bring in back-to-work legislation yet again, would this minister be willing to review section 87.7 in order to look at a better way to ensure that grain transportation does...?

• 1630

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: As you know, again what happened was not under the Canada Labour Code. These employees were not under the Canada Labour Code.

I'm going to be visiting the grain elevators, and I'm going to be going to visit the longshoremen at the end of May. It's going to be interesting to see what kind of discussion we're going to have with them. I wouldn't want to say to you today, no, we're absolutely not going to look at it. Having been on this committee, I can remember the presentations we had and I can remember the discussions we had before it was put in black and white on the paper. So am I prepared to say to you today, absolutely not? No. As I said, I'm going to go at the end of May and meet the longshoremen and meet the grain elevator people, and probably they're going to be discussing the issue with me. I look forward to that meeting.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I think it worth noting, Madam Minister, that there seems to be more support now for final-offer selection arbitration than there has been in the past. And I think it's worth noting that when we did discuss the back-to-work legislation I moved an amendment that we go to final-offer selection in place of the back-to-work, and it was supported by all of the opposition parties at that time. So I would encourage that to be one of the things the minister takes into consideration as far as this is concerned.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Mr. Johnston, let's speak a little bit about back-to-work legislation. I guess you have your opinion of it, and I guess I have my opinion of it.

There's a process in place, and in Canada we give the employees the right to strike. In Canada, a diplomatic country, the process we've put in place is that the employee and the employer will sit down and discuss a good collective agreement. That's the country we live in. If every time there's a disruption, and for sure when there's a strike somebody is going to have a disruption, we go right away and say, holly jumpin', we're going to legislate them back to work—when will the two ever sit down and clear the air so that the workplace is a good place to work?

Mr. Dale Johnston: I think the minister has missed my point.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Maybe.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I agree—

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): But it was good what she was saying.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Sorry, but the minute I hear back-to-work legislation I get.... Sorry, Mr. Johnston, because I really like you a lot.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I agree, I believe in labour's right to organize and strike peacefully and withdraw their services. That's in the case where you have parties who aren't willing to negotiate freely. I believe that the negotiated settlement is absolutely the best settlement.

What I'm saying is that we have to go through a very wrenching process to legislate people back to work, which was legislation that was introduced by the Liberal government. I'm saying that rather than having to go through those systems over and over again in situations where we have a monopoly like grain handlers, and there's no other game in town, and railroads, where there's simply no other way to get the grain to port, that there be a process that when the negotiations bog down final-offer selection arbitration can be used in place of back-to-work legislation. I'm not in favour of back-to-work legislation either. I don't think it solves anything. I think it's an arbitrary thing. It's an autocratic thing that I don't adhere to either. I think that in any circumstance a negotiated settlement is by far preferred. And final-offer selection, if you'd investigate it a little more thoroughly, you'll discover is a method of negotiation that is certainly usable.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: And that's open to both parties if they so wish.

• 1635

Mr. Dale Johnston: Well, it is and it isn't. In this particular case, the right for arbitration was taken away from this handful of PSAC people who were handling the grain. They could not go to arbitration.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: They weren't ours, but under us they can. Under the Canada Labour Code they could, voluntarily. But thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak about back-to-work legislation.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Is that it for now?

The Chair: Yes. Do you have a quick rebuttal?

Mr. Dale Johnston: I leave you with the last word.

The Chair: Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm sorry I was a little late. I was working on the Canada Labour Code, probably section 47, which has to do with our producers in the prairies who are under stress.

I'm sorry I missed any graduation ceremonies that might have been held before I came in here, because I certainly want to welcome our minister to the committee. I've been sitting around here for only five and a half years, but we've had several—quite a few—ministers for HRD and labour come and go. It's great to see you here and one of our own.

It's only three or four years ago that we sat here for the first time in 25 years, as I've mentioned before, on a Saturday and Sunday, when we had back-to-work legislation for the rail to get the grain moving. And I do remember looking at the clock the other morning—it seems like just the other day—when we finished the back-to-work vote at 8.21 a.m., but maybe I couldn't see it too well.

And you know, Madam Minister, Mr. Johnston here at that time.... When we dealt with part I, I felt we were doing a pretty good job. Our MPP colleagues were supporting most of our efforts and most of our other members said we were getting it very close to right. Now Mr. Johnston did say at the time that there's a small thing or two. And I heard you, Madam Minister, say that we have to give part I a chance. We want to do that, and we have to do that.

I'm thinking about part I and thinking about the past and the last interruption of the grain. Again, it's grain we're talking about as a commodity, and not any other commodity in this country. Grain is a distinct commodity. We all know that. Before, after, and during our discussions of part I, and then after hours, I felt good in defending grain as a separate commodity.

Of course this time, Madam Minister, our producers are getting a price for their grain that's less than what they got in the dirty thirties, and that's a long time ago, when prices were a lot different. That's why it was so important this time. Of course there's always a real possibility that with the shipment of grain that was in Vancouver on the weekend, the next ship might be the one that's taking grain to a hungry child somewhere. So we're quite passionate about the grain.

Yes, Dale, we in the east fought well for the $900 million for our farmers—with your support, thank you.

I'm glad to hear you're going to visit the west coast, Madam Minister, because the grain handlers, who are a different group outside the jurisdiction.... I just want us to be aware that this could happen again, for whatever reasons—and again, it's grain. If we wait a little bit for the potash or the coal and all those other commodities we ship.... I was happy to hear the exchange between you and Mr. Johnston, Madam Minister, but I also was giving you my thoughts on that commodity.

Mr. O'Reilly mentioned the media reports about the labour stoppages in this country. I remember one day I asked you that question in the House. But you know the media once in a while gets things twisted a bit. I'm just wondering if your department has looked at trying to do a little advertising or provide a little more information that we could share, so Canadians could realize that from the federal jurisdiction we are very successful.

• 1640

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Thank you for opening the door for me, because I was afraid nobody would ask me. This year is the 100th anniversary of the Department of Labour, so we hope you're going to be hearing a lot more about what we've done. We are talking now about the issues that we want to make sure are front and centre, and about how far, if you look back 100 years ago, we've come.

I was listening to Mr. Martin speak, and I thought, isn't it something that part II is so proactive in prevention? And look at what the situation was like 100 years ago.

So to answer you, yes, I'm hoping the media will be good to to us with all the good events we're going to be doing, and I hope the Hill realizes that we're going to celebrate, if you will, the revival of Mackenzie King, who was the first Minister of Labour.

So we've got great plans, and we're hoping you'll all participate when we come out with our events.

Mr. Larry McCormick: That's good, because timing is everything, Madam Chair.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: That's what the Liberals can do, Dale.

Mr. Larry McCormick: There's something I'd like to put on the record, Madam Chair, if I'm allowed—and of course the minister doesn't have to reply, but our ministers are most capable of looking after themselves.

When we read the local rag—sorry, Mike and others—on the Hill recently, we saw the articles. This is something we can address a couple of years from now, perhaps, but there's the fact that the drivers of those green buses from our chamber and other employees make less money than the employees at the other house. Now, this will be in the future, but I wasn't impressed. I think many of us hope to see.... It was a small difference, but there shouldn't be a difference. I hope, when the time comes, we have a person who is as capable as you to help advise and encourage whoever does the negotiations, Madam Chair.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: I can assure you, I, as Minister of Labour, and the professional staff in our department would gladly sit with anybody who wanted to sit with us and see what we do for employees and employers and how we do it. We'll gladly do that.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you very much. I have confidence in you.

In regard to the North American Free Trade Agreement, we have an interest in the side agreement on labour. But now negotiations are under way to the free trade of the Americas agreement. I sat in on a subcommittee the other day that was following the WTO, looking, again, at the ramifications of the commodities in this country. I'm just wondering what you had there on how the negotiations are going with these side agreements.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: There are no side agreements with us.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I meant the agreement with the Americas. Are they happening now?

Mr. Warren Edmondson: We've been involved over the last couple of years. As you know, we have a labour side agreement with Chile. We have the NALC, the labour side agreement with Mexico and the U.S.

The previous Minister of Labour attended for the first time a meeting of ministers of labour in the Americas and all of the Latin American states. I think, as a matter of fact, some of the members of Parliament in this room might have accompanied the former Minister of Labour to Chile for that meeting. And out of that meeting were struck a couple of working groups to try to promote more collaboration between Latin American and North American countries to study labour practices, industrial relations practices, and occupational safety and health practices.

So if and when the time comes for the implementation or negotiation of some form of trade agreement with the Americas, and if labour side agreements are contemplated, I think we would be well positioned at that point to negotiate those kinds of agreements. There's been a tremendous interest on the part of Latin American countries in North American labour law, particularly Canadian labour law, and how we administer it. They seem to look frequently to how we do business in this country.

• 1645

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you for bringing me up to date on that, because I didn't know where we were at. I think about a very wise man, a great basketball player—he showed that yesterday—who coined the phrase about our “fourth amigo”. I think a lot of us wish we would have come up with something that good.

We're all looking at the north-south trade. The other day, when we were in Manitoba with the Prime Minister's task force, they were talking about the highway from Manitoba to Mexico. We're going to see much more in north-south trade. I hope it's beneficial.

As we bring in these other partners and agreements, I'm sure that strength can add support to what the ILO is doing with the child labour that happens in some of our neighbouring countries.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: The work that's being done among Mexico, the United States, and Canada is really interesting work. I was saying today that it reminds me a little of when you're with CIDA. You go into a country, you work at the grassroots level, and you see it change. It's a bit like that.

There's a lot of respect there. There's a lot of cooperation among the three countries. Our staff are certainly spending a lot of time with them and doing different training. The discussions are really very open. We're proud of some of the work we're doing there. We hope we can expand that. We're certainly going to be open to that.

Mr. Larry McCormick: That's good news, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Patrick Martin: I'm spending lots of time with this committee. I'm not used to this.

The Chair: We're a very democratic committee.

Mr. Patrick Martin: Speaking of child labour, if I could visit that again, are you willing in the near future to work with the provinces to finally sign ILO 138, the existing convention on child labour? The reason I ask is that they're always blaming the NDP government in Saskatchewan for not signing it. I think I can get that government to agree this time, if the minister is willing.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: You know that with the child labour there are two basic things. There's the minimum age, and there's the worst form of child labour.

In regard to the worst form of child labour, we know the provinces are going to come on board. I mean, who wouldn't? It's child prostitution, drugs, etc.

The problem with the minimum age, the area where we could run into a problem with the provinces, is that if you look at our country, you've got your babysitter, you've got the person who delivers the newspapers, and those issues do come to the table.

Mr. Patrick Martin: None of those things stop the child from developing in a healthy way or going to school or doing all the things a kid does.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Exactly, but—

Mr. Patrick Martin: Even if a kid takes two weeks off to pitch bales of hay at harvest time with his dad, he doesn't drop out of school. I think reasonable people could get around the barriers or the arguments that have always been used, Madam Minister.

Nobody has tried, since the late 1970s, to get the provinces on board. Seeing that we're going to be looking at the new convention in a few days, actually, and we don't have any problems signing that, I think it would be really timely to see if we can get them both done at the same time, if you're willing.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: You know that if I can, I will, and I'll always be trying.

As you know, we're going to be going to Geneva together, and it's certainly something I want to discuss. I haven't been there yet, so I need to know. But those are the arguments I was given, so I'm giving them to you. I'm sure you've heard them before. If we can find a way to work around them, then certainly we will do that.

Mr. Patrick Martin: I would welcome the opportunity anyway.

A more specific question I have is that I know that up until very recently there was a huge backlog at the Labour Relations Board, and a lot of this was applications for certification, which are very time-sensitive issues. Has the switch to the CIRB alleviated the backlog? The second side of that question is, what is the budget line for this CIRB versus the old board? Is there less money or more money being allocated to the board?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: To answer your first question—I'm really pleased to answer it too—the work that goes into putting in a new board is amazing. I have to tell you, again, the staff were really great.

What we did also with the board was that it included CLC and FETCO. They were both really pleased with the board.

We were quite concerned about the backlog. We said holy jumpin, how long is it going to take? We were trying to put a date on it. I'm pleased to announce to you today that it's going very, very well. We're really happy with the way it's working. We're looking at part-timers and things like that. It has been working very well, and the backlog is really coming down.

• 1650

Mr. Pat Martin: It's certainly one of the goals, I know.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: It's certainly one of the goals.

As for the finances, Warren might have other stuff to add about the board.

Mr. Warren Edmondson: I don't have the specific numbers with me, but we can get them for you. My recollection is that the numbers were up slightly during the transition year, and there were obviously good reasons for that. There were outgoing board members and incoming board members. I can't recall the figures in terms of long-term operating costs and what the differences may be, but we can certainly get those to you, Mr. Martin.

The information I have from speaking to the board representatives is that the backlog certainly hasn't been eliminated, but they've made tremendous headway. It took a little while to get the new board functioning. But they've really been working extremely hard, and they have been paying attention to operating efficiently and expeditiously as well.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's good news.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Pat Martin: Am I out of time?

The Chair: You have time for one last question.

Mr. Pat Martin: There's reference in some of the briefing notes that legislative change may enable each HRDC to shift to more proactive work that addresses workplace issues, etc. I'm thinking of the Donner report of 1994, which everybody was interested in and excited about, and then later Mr. Gagliano's reflective collection, or whatever, of the changing workplace initiative. Are we going to have any resources to be able to look at interesting things such as reduced work week and flexible work issues, the innovative kind of changes we have to have as we move into the next century?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: What I can say to you is that the people who are involved in the consultations are getting access to all those reports. Again, as you know because you've been there, you have both sides. So it's going to be interesting to see what both sides are going to come out with. But the people who are doing the consultations will have access to those reports.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Warren, did you want to add something?

Mr. Warren Edmondson: I can only add that these are issues that concern the minister and us in the department as to being on top of changing workplace issues and how they affect workers and enterprises. We have to constantly review how we deploy our resources in order to make sure that we have good first-hand knowledge of what is really going on out there and how it's affecting working people. In internal discussions with our policy people, we're always trying to ensure that we have the right research in place. I won't say that at this point we have specifically identified research projects in place, but as it's early in the new year, we're still planning the year's activities. It's a preoccupation we have right now, because things are changing so quickly.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: But we are not going to take the reports away from them. They will get them.

Mr. Patrick Martin: Okay.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Johnston has a quick question, and then we'll go to Andy Scott for the last round.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I notice, Madam Minister, that on page 9 Labour is at $139.8 million, as Mr. Martin pointed out, but there's no breakdown. I wonder if the department could send me the breakdown.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: That's not a problem. We'll do that for you.

The Chair: Mr. Scott.

Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Thank you.

It's a pleasure, Madam Minister. My questions were going to be very modest, but since we've revived Mackenzie King, I think I have great latitude. It may be that kind of wisdom we're going to have to call upon, actually.

It occurs to me that the committee is spending a lot of time in its more general work dealing with the changing nature of work. The reference has been made to the Donner report and Minister Gagliano's earlier report in terms of dealing with this. We also had reference to the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation, which I think is another part of the changing nature of work.

We think about it often in terms of hours of work and so on. But I think as we continue to be more engaged in international issues, how you deal with the protection of labour in the context of international issues is, I think, something we should be seized with. As an employer or someone responsible for 10% of the employees, it seems an appropriate place to look at it.

• 1655

My question is really following up on Mr. Martin's. In terms of both the Donner report and Mr. Gagliano's report, what is very specifically the disposition of the department? Secondly, could the department put forward a response to the criticism that will always be around international labour agreements, that it's very difficult to enforce them in the face of sovereignty, and so on and so forth?

How do we as a country, and how does the department in its 100th anniversary, perhaps show leadership to try to get our heads around these issues? I think it's something that troubles us all, and the only reason we aren't able to fix it is because the remedy isn't apparent to many of us. If we were talking to Mackenzie King, we could perhaps ask him too.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: It's an idea. I was having the same conversation last night during the briefing. We called on Mackenzie King several times.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: This is the best way I know to answer your question. We will have had quite a bit of practice by the time we get to part III. Part I worked out very well. The groups got together and discussed it for four or five years. When it came to the committee it was hot. I was here. When I look at part II and what's been done up to now, it's going to be good. I'm happy with what I've seen so far, and I know the two groups are also.

What you're talking about will be in part III. Part III will deal with a lot of the issues you're discussing. We had a long conversation, for example, on employment equity. When we start talking about part III, employment equity issues will come into it. We discussed the two reports. That's all going to be part of the discussion of part III.

Because of the process we have in place and because you have the employer on one side and the employee on one side, you look at it and ask, “Okay, what are we going to do with this?” They're the ones. Don't forget now that our staff is working with people who are there. Our staff is not working with people who have never been in the workforce and don't know what the issues are.

Part I was done together with the two groups. Part II has been done together with the two groups. Part III will be done together with the two groups. So those are the discussions we've been having. I'm sure a lot of the questions you've asked and a lot of the issues you're looking will be brought in. They may not be in part III, but our staff is going to be taking notes on the side, because if they're not in part III, they will possibly be in the Employment Equity Act.

As you know, the Employment Equity Act will be reviewed by 2001. So part III is coming right at a good time. It will give us the opportunity to bring the two sides in to do a little bit of both. I'm very confident they're going to be looking at all the issues you just brought up.

So the timing is perfect. Part I is done. Part II will hopefully be done in the fall. Again, I hate to give you a date, because you'll question me in question period if the date's not right, and we don't like that. We're starting to work on part III now. So hopefully we'll be answering all those questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister, for your patience. As always, it's refreshing to be in your company. Thank you for the nostalgic return trip. Please come again.

I have a quick announcement to our committee members. One of our witnesses for tomorrow has cancelled. The Auditor General will be sending a representative to meet with us in camera. Louis Lalonde will be presenting in camera tomorrow.

Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.