HUMA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, October 22, 2003

¹

1520

The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.))

Mr. Warren Edmondson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Labour, Department of Human Resources Development)

¹

1525

¹

1530

¹

1535

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance)

¹

1540

Mr. Warren Edmondson

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Warren Edmondson

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Warren Edmondson

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Warren Edmondson

Mr. Brian Pallister

¹

1545

Mr. Warren Edmondson

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Warren Edmondson

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.)

Mr. Laurent Quintal (Chief of Research, Policy Development, Labour Program, Department of Human Resources Development)

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Laurent Quintal

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Laurent Quintal

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Warren Edmondson

Ms. Gay Stinson (Director, Policy Development, Labour Program, Department of Human Resources Development)

¹

1550

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Warren Edmondson

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Warren Edmondson

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Warren Edmondson

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

The Chair

Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Warren Edmondson

¹

1555

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mr. Warren Edmondson

Mr. Neil Gavigan (Director, Labour Standards and Workplace Equity, Department of Human Resources Development)

Mr. Warren Edmondson

º

1600

The Chair

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ)

º

1635

Mr. Neil Gavigan

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay

Ms. Gay Stinson

º

1640

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.)

Mr. Warren Edmondson

Mr. Larry McCormick

Mr. Neil Gavigan

Mr. Larry McCormick

Mr. Warren Edmondson

º

1645

Mr. Larry McCormick

Mr. Warren Edmondson

Mr. Larry McCormick

Mr. Warren Edmondson

Mr. Larry McCormick

Mr. Warren Edmondson

Mr. Larry McCormick

Mr. Warren Edmondson

Mr. Larry McCormick

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.))

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

º

1650

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Mr. Warren Edmondson

Mr. Laurent Quintal

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay

º

1655

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Mr. Warren Edmondson

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay

Mr. Warren Edmondson

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay

Mr. Warren Edmondson

»

1700

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.)

Mr. Warren Edmondson

»

1705

Mr. Ovid Jackson

Mr. Warren Edmondson

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Mr. Larry McCormick

Mr. Warren Edmondson

The Chair

Mr. Larry McCormick

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

---

NUMBER 041

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, October 22, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1520)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)): Good afternoon.

    I am pleased to welcome witnesses from the department. We have with us Warren Edmondson, assistant deputy minister,labour; Fred Chilton, manager, labour standards policy and legislation; Neil Gavigan, director, labour standards and workplace equity; Laurent Quintal, chief of research,policy development, labour program; and Gay Stinson, director,policy development, labour program.

    I want to thank all of you for taking time out of a very busy day to appear before us, and I want to leave as much time as I can for questions. So without further ado--and we know who you are, Mr. Edmonson--I will hand the floor over to you.

    Mr. Warren Edmondson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Labour, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    On behalf of the labour program of Human Resources Development Canada, I'd like to say what a pleasure it is to appear before the committee today at a very early stage of your examination of work-life balance issues.

    You perhaps have a copy of my brief introductory presentation, but I must confess that I will digress slightly from it. I do believe the translators have a copy of the version I will be using.

¹  (1525)  

[Translation]

    As you have already said, I am accompanied today by Ms. Gay Stinson, Director, Policy Development; Mr. Laurent Quintal, Chief of Research, Policy Development; Mr. Neil Gavigan, Director, Labour Standards and Workplace Equity, and Mr. Fred Chilton, Manager, Labour Standards Policy and Legislation.

    We have prepared a short presentation on the issue of enhancing the work-life balance. We will also talk briefly about the report entitled Voices of Canadians: Seeking Work-Life Balance and about the initiatives implemented under the Labour Program. We will be happy to answer any questions you may have after the presentation itself.

¹  (1530)  

[English]

    Issues associated with work-life balance are of growing concern, as you know, for employers, unions, and academics. Governments recognize that as more and more Canadians experience significant conflicts between the demands of work and family, public policy must respond.

    It would take a broader analysis of the relationship involving the impacts of technology and globalization, changes in work organization, economic fluctuations, demographic shifts, and family structure for us to understand why this issue has emerged so recently and rapidly. There are two important facts, and the first is that more women with young children participate in the labour force: in 2001, 69% of women with children under six compared to only 36% in 1976. Second, dual-earner couples and lone-working-parent families are becoming the norm: in 2001, 70% of all parents worked, including those in dual-income families as well as single heads of families.

    Much of our work to date is concerned with identifying this issue and its impact so we can design appropriate solutions. Several different researchers confirm that the search for work-life balance is the dominant concern of most working Canadians. According to the Vanier Institute of the Family, 66% of full-time employed parents with children are dissatisfied with the balance between their jobs and home lives. In 2000, 34% of workers in Canada reported that too many demands or too many hours of work had caused them excess worry or stress in the past 12 months. That is according to a Statistics Canada survey.

[Translation]

    Linda Duxbury, from the University of Carleton, and her colleagues, have been studying this issue and issuing reports for the past 10 years. Health Canada, which is funding the main study being done in this area, recently published the first of a series of six reports providing quantitative data on stress, its causes and impact.

    The Labour Program recently published a report by Linda Duxbury, entitled Voices of Canadians: Seeking Work-Life Balance. The report contains testimony in the own words of the people who were surveyed, which provide a much more human aspect to the work-life issue. This testimony allows us to get a better grasp of the real nature of the work-life conflict and its impact on people's lives.

[English]

    And just last Friday the next report was released by Health Canada.

    So what does her work tell us? Work and family life are not separate domains. Work circumstances interfere with family life four out of five times, causing work-life conflict. Work-life conflict affects both working men and women in most occupations. For some, in fact, work-life conflict led to a decision to postpone having children. It impacts on those caring for parents or disabled family members, and it's particularly problematic for those with unstable or insecure work. From the research, it is clear that managers need to be more supportive of workers with family needs. This is one of the most important messages.

    To reduce work-life conflict, employees need a combination of supportive managers, policies that provide workplace flexibility, and greater control over their working time. It also appears that work-life conflict has a substantial social and economic impact on Canadians. It shows up in higher worker absenteeism and turnover and in poor morale. For example, employees with high work-family conflict missed an average of 11.4 days of work in 2001, a substantially higher number than the 7.8 days missed by employees with low work-life conflict. That costs the Canadian economy in the range of $3 billion a year.

    There are also health costs. Employees reporting high levels of work-life conflict suffer high stress levels and a variety of stress-related health problems. We are currently studying the costs associated with this. Preliminary indications are that those with high work-life conflict are six times more likely to report high levels of job stress or stress associated with high blood pressure, ulcers, depression, and heart disease, with the estimated cost to industry at $16 billion per year. They are almost six times more likely to report feeling a high level of burnout. Mental and nervous disorders now account for roughly 30% of long-term disability claims, double the level of a decade ago. Workers with high work-life conflict are almost 40% more likely to report a doctor's visit in the last six months. These extra trips are estimated to cost the Canadian health care system more than $400 million annually.

    For employers there are significant costs as well. Research estimates that workplace stress is responsible for 19% of absenteeism, 40% of turnover, 30% of short-term and long-term disability costs, 60% of the total cost of workplace accidents, and 21% of all workers' compensation paid, or about $1 billion annually, which is an estimate on our part.

[Translation]

    In other words, the research has revealed that the conflict between life and work responsibilities is becoming much more frequent and significant in the lives of Canadians. This means that there are costs for individuals, their families, their employers and society as a whole.

    What has the Labour Program done to address this issue?

    We have been working on this issue for some time now. We have developed knowledge on this issue and its impact. We have also made other stakeholders aware of this problem and have attempted to come up with solutions as well.

[English]

    We've supported research on work-life conflict, older workers, collective agreements that facilitate work-life balance, and employer-supported day care. We are supporting research done by l'Université Laval on the costs at the firm level of workplace practices that reduce stress. We are also currently studying the cost implications for workers' compensation boards and for employers due to claims that are related to unmanaged workplace stress. With our provincial colleagues we will jointly examine issues, policies, and programs related to work-life conflict, including conflict for those workers who lack access to job and social security.

    At the same time, we are raising awareness of this issue with workplace partners, providing information to human resource practitioners and the broad labour policy community in Canada. For example, we have published “Voices of Canadians” and other reports referred to earlier and disseminated them on our Work-Life Balance website. The site provides information on resources available to employers and workers and on policies and practices, including best practices and lessons learned.

    I should add here, Madam Chair, that the number of hits on that website from Canadians across the country is well beyond our expectations. Gay Stinson can probably give you the particular numbers, but since we posted it a short time ago, it has been very frequently visited.

¹  (1535)  

    We are seeking additional ways to inform the human resources community of effective solutions, including the development of a web-based instructional program to assist managers in small and medium-sized enterprises.

    We have supported the Canadian Labour Congress in its initiative to develop a document on their vision of the workplace that suits the employer and employee needs of this century. This will help the congress consult within the labour movement and help us when we consult with workplace partners on changes to labour standards.

    That brings me to the core issue: if and how labour standards could address issues of work-life conflict and ease the level of stress and role overload of employees. I will provide you at the end of my presentation with a series of tables that give an overview of elements of federal and provincial labour standards that can assist working parents achieve work-life balance. The table of contents indicates the subjects related to work-life balance and labour standards currently, all provisions related to various types of leave and hours of work.

    You are aware that Minister Bradshaw wants to have our federal labour standards, part III, examined in the light of changes in the world of work. The changes include issues of work-life balance as well as changes taking place in the nature of the employment relationship. In fact, we have not had a major review of labour standards since 1965. This has been on our agenda for the last couple of years, but is not something that can be done overnight.

    Over the past three years we have been preoccupied--both the department and our clients, business and labour--with the review and amendment of part I, the labour relations part, of the Canada Labour Code; with part II, Occupational Health and Safety; and finally, very recently, with the review of the Employment Equity Act. This committee is of course very familiar with that. However, neither our workplace partners nor we had the resources to simultaneously sustain a comprehensive examination of all the issues involved in revising employment standards to meet the needs of the 21st century.

    We have an inclusive and well-respected process for working with our clients to develop proposals for amendments to labour standards. Our Labour Standards Client Consultation Committee consists of representatives of federally regulated employers like the Canadian Bankers Association and FETCO, Federally Regulated Employers--Transportation and Communications; of workers' groups like the Canadian Labour Congress, the Fédération des travailleurset travailleuses du Québec, and the CSN; and of government, HRDC's labour program and legal services.

    Through this committee we study how well current legislation is working, what the problems are, and what new or emerging issues there might be; then we propose possible approaches for amending labour standards. This process is supported by studies providing evidence of the issues experienced to date, best practices, and alternate models.

    After we have considered all perspectives, a proposal is prepared for amending the code. Of course, further ministerial and governmental considerations are brought to the process through a legislative committee. The result is that those regulated by the law are engaged in the process, are knowledgeable of the reasons for changes that are made, recognize that their perspectives were taken into consideration, and are able to accept and implement the changes readily.

    I must add as well, Madam Chair, that if you can look at our history of consultation with business and labour in developing the legislative framework, you will also find, whether it's for part I of the code, Industrial Relations, or for part II, that through this process a fair amount of consensus emerges between business and labour. At the end of the day, they have to live with the legislative framework we create for them, and we are able to do so much more effectively with this process.

    This is the process we believe we need to follow again. The issues raised in a review of labour standards include some of the thorniest issues for any government, issues about regulating working time and issues about facilitating work-life balance.

    A year ago the minister met with key business and labour groups and indicated her intention of examining part III of the Canada Labour Code. We are now at the point where we want to ask for some help in looking at the role labour standards and labour policy can play in meeting the workplace challenges of the 21st century, issues like enhancing work-life balance, the impact of changing employment relationships, and the link between labour standards, good human resource practices, and improving workplace productivity.

    We are looking at the Canadian Workplace Research Network at Queen's University. This is a network of academics from across Canada who devote much of their research and writing to workplace issues. In the coming months we'll be asking the network to examine the latest data and to summarize a number of key issues facing Canadian businesses and workers. We also expect them to be having round tables to discuss these issues with representatives of business, labour, the provinces, and community organizations. We will also be consulting with the Labour Standards Client Consultation Committee on how we can translate these ideas into concrete actions.

    The fundamental issue is to determine the best way our labour standards legislation can be revisited to suit the needs of both employers and employees in the world we live in. A key challenge is being able to come to grips with the impact of changing employment relationships, as well as reconciling work-life balance needs of employees with the employer's business needs in the global economy.

    There is clearly a need for discussions with workplace partners on the role of labour standards in achieving work-life balance. The committee's focus on this topic is most welcome and we are ready to support you.

    We will do our best to answer any questions you and members of the committee may have.

    Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Edmondson.

    For the first round of questioning we're going to take six minutes each, and we'll start with Mr. Pallister.

    Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Thanks very much for the fascinating presentation. I also enjoyed reading through the document “Voices of Canadians”. It was poignant in many of the comments that appeared there.

    I'm concerned about the level of EI premiums, so let's just cut to the chase. I see it as something of a glaring oversight. I read about what governments can do to reduce work-life conflict, yet I see no reference here whatsoever to the excessively high EI premiums in this country. The Auditor General of Canada says we're in danger of violating our own legislation. The chief actuary says that a reserve of $10 billion to $15 billion would be adequate, yet we have $45 billion in reserve. That means to me that $30 billion has come out of the budgets of the families of our country. Now surely, reducing the income of people unnecessarily creates a greater challenge to their ability to manage this work-life equilibrium.

    You say in here on page 79 of the big document from my colleagues that families that have greater financial resources are better able to cope with their work-life balance. That just makes sense. They'd have additional financial power, the ability to create their own flexibility, and so on.

    You reference, sir, the consensus that's developed between business and labour on a number of these issues. It's also developed around the need to reduce EI premiums. The Canadian Labour Congress, the Fraser Institute, and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation very seldom agree, but they certainly agree on this.

    First of all, tell me why there is no reference in here to lowering EI premiums to a level that would be quite sustainable and that would leave thousands of dollars in the hands of working Canadians, in particular low-income families.

¹  (1540)  

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: The reason for not including that issue in our terms of reference, if I can reply, is simply because we are focused on what is currently provided for in labour standards legislation. We are also focused on the issues for which the Minister of Labour and HRDC's labour program--which has its history, as you know, in Labour Canada--have the mandate. In fact, our program and the Minister of Labour do not have a mandate to deal with EI issues. We are really focused on the more traditional workplace rules, regulations, and provisions you would find in traditional labour standards legislation, which is really outside the realm of EI legislation.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: I appreciate your comments, sir. You understand a bit, I think, my frustration and the frustration I hear from working Canadians, because we're talking around this with a lot of these issues. Though I do not discount the importance of many of the suggestions you made in any way, we're trying to dress up a duck and not call it a duck. We're dealing with the periphery of the take-home pay issue. The take-home pay issue for working Canadians is big. Single-income moms don't deserve to pay an extra couple of hundred dollars in EI premiums just so it can go into a slush fund. They don't deserve to have that happen to them.

    We want to reduce work-life conflict, and you reference in here, quite rightly, the need for more flexibility. Boy, I have some single moms in my riding who would love to be able to work fewer hours and have more time with their kids. Child care issues wouldn't be so big in their lives. If we reduce that EI premium, we'll create that kind of flexibility.

    So you'll understand why I see us as skirting around this issue quite a bit, and there's frustration out there on the part of working Canadians too.

    I'm just curious about an aspect of part III of the code. What proportion of the federally regulated workforce is unionized and covered by a collective agreement? Do you have a bit of an idea of that?

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: I wish I had a more precise idea, quite frankly, because we have new employers falling within the federal jurisdiction every day. It's very difficult for us.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: It's a moving target.

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: Unless we have some dealings with them, it's a moving target.

    May I just comment on your previous issue?

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Please do.

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: This is just to clarify one thing that may be helpful to you, although I can't really comment on EI because, as I said, it's not within our jurisdiction.

    One of the things you will find in part III of the labour standards and the regulations that flow from them is a reference to minimum wage, which of course impacts on the economic well-being of people who are covered by labour standards. I would assume that issues like that may very well come to the fore in a study we would get into. The EI consequences are one issue, but there is a question, I suppose, where if every employer in the country gave employees a significant wage increase, that might have a different kind of impact.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Or if by policy we gave everybody in the country a little bit of a raise by leaving their money in their own pockets. Either way.

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: Yes, I understand.

    On your issue of trade union density within federal jurisdiction, our best research indicates that we are higher than the average in the country. The federal jurisdiction would be probably closer to 40% than to 30%. I would think, again, except for perhaps the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we are the most highly unionized jurisdiction in the country. It ranges somewhere between 33% and perhaps 40%; that would be our best-knowledge statement. Most of the major employers in the federal jurisdiction are unionized, as you would know.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: I'll just segue with a really quick question because I've run out of time. Do most of these collective agreements provide workers with greater employment standards protection than those afforded under part III of the Canada Labour Code?

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: Generally speaking, yes.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Thanks.

    The Chair: Madame St-Jacques.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I would like to clarify specific points in your presentation. You said in your presentation that in 2001, 70 per cent of parents worked. Do you have statistics on the average number of hours that a family has to work in order to make ends meet?

    Mr. Laurent Quintal (Chief of Research, Policy Development, Labour Program, Department of Human Resources Development): There are studies that have been done by the Canadian Council on Social Development which have looked at this issue. I don't have the information with me here, but there are specific studies which have worked out the number of hours that the average family needs to work in order to attain a certain standard of living. These studies are available, but I don't have the exact data with me here.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Do you think it would be possible to obtain them?

    Mr. Laurent Quintal: I think that it was based on an average wage of $10 an hour. It showed how many hours an average double-income family earning $10 an hour would have to work to put itself beyond the poverty line.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Do you think we could get our hands on these statistics?

    Mr. Laurent Quintal: Indeed, we could provide you with this information.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: My second question deals with the international situation. There must be countries which have been successful in striking a work-life balance. I was just wondering which countries have been successful in this regard and whether we were aware of the steps that those countries have taken to enhance the work-life balance. Do you think that we would be able to obtain that information?

[English]

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: We have done some research, some comparative studies between our practices in the federal jurisdiction and those of other countries. It is fairly extensive. I can certainly undertake to make sure you have a copy of the work we have done. I don't know whether or not the staff can highlight some particular issues that may be helpful.

    Ms. Gay Stinson (Director, Policy Development, Labour Program, Department of Human Resources Development): We can supply more details of this, but I'll just mention a couple of countries where governments have taken a particular path to encourage and support employers in the introduction of more work-life balance policies. First of all, in the United Kingdom they have taken quite a proactive approach by establishing an employer network, where employers support each other and learn from each other the policies that work best.

    They are at the current time developing a testing mechanism, where they ask employees in a company their level of satisfaction with various aspects of their work such as flexibility of hours and so on. They have criteria established where if the percentage of satisfied employees falls below a certain level, that employer will be requested to have a plan of action to improve the ways to reduce the conflict and stress at work. At the moment it's a voluntary program, but the U.K. is looking at the possibility of making it a regulatory program.

    A second example I might refer to is the Australian government, which prefers to do this primarily through an awards program undertaken by the government every year. There are awards that are given out for excellence in work-life balance in the private sector. They solicit applications from companies, which then basically bid on showing the excellence of their programs. This is a way to support these principles being adopted more widely, to get recognition for those who are doing a very good job, and of course to share the best practices.

    Those are two good international examples.

¹  (1550)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: I have one last question I want to ask. It deals with the International Labour Organization, which adopted the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention in 1981. Was this convention ratified by the Canadian government?

[English]

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: I'm not sure specifically which agreement you're referring to.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: You are talking about C-156, the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, which was adopted in 1981.

[English]

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: Canada has not ratified ILO convention 156.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Does Canada plan to sign on to this agreement? What misgivings do we have here in Canada and why haven't we signed it?

[English]

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: I am told that further study is going to be required before we are able to ratify. As you know, for us to ratify we need to have the compliance of all the provinces and the territories, and I understand that there are still some problems to be worked out.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: That's all, Madam Chair.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Spencer.

    Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Part of the recent study by HRDC found different things that needed to be done. One point they make is that workers should be better informed of their rights under part III of the Labour Code.

    Carrying that over to the idea of family-friendly practices in the workplace covered by part III of the Labour Code, could you tell us what you really consider some of those practices to be? First, can you identify some employers who may be doing that? Second, how are they informing their workers? And third, is the federal government a best-practice example?

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: We would certainly like to think we are the model for the country.

    In all seriousness, I can say there is actually a tremendous amount of cooperation between the federal government and the provinces in the area of labour standards. In fact, the issue of work-life balance has actually been on the agenda of ministers of labour at federal-provincial meetings--at the last two meetings, if I recall correctly. This is obviously an issue that has a fair amount of attention in the country, and federal and provincial ministers are concerned about this issue.

    We have done a number of things federally, obviously. I mentioned in my opening presentation the website we have up and running, which has been incredibly popular. It has been accessed by employees, by academics, and by employers from small and medium-sized enterprises, and I think they find it very useful to help them address some of these issues in their workplaces.

    We have been meeting with many organizations of both smaller and larger employers, such as the Bankers Association and the Canadian Trucking Association. As you know, many of the trucking companies are small companies and have some significant concerns these days in recruiting and retaining people, and they are trying to deal with some of these issues. Many people in the industry are hesitant to take on our traditional trucking jobs because of the length of time away from home, and employers are trying to find ways to address some of these complex issues.

    We have produced all kinds of publications. In our regional offices we have put in place individuals who are fairly knowledgeable and who can assist employers to the extent resources are available--and we have very limited resources in the program. We call them “early resolution officers”. They are helpful not only in advising people of what their rights are under the code but also in directing them to the information sources we have, either on the web or in hard copy.

    There are many employers in the country who have done various innovative things related to hours of work, flex-time, telework, and many other initiatives; some of them are quite a model, I think, and not only for this country. I wouldn't necessarily want to name them here, but information on some of their practices is readily available, and they share information with some of their competitors even within the same sector.

    I think I'll stop there, but there are some really good things happening out there.

    One of the points I'll make is that the question at the end of the day is--it's the question we have; we don't really have the answer at this point--how much can we achieve through legislation and how much can we achieve through promotion of best practices and awareness? What are the needs of employers and employees out there? What is the best way to effect change?

    Probably a combination of both is what is needed to some extent at the end of the day, but we need to do a lot of homework before we get the balance right and provide both a legislative framework and an information service that will allow employers and employees access to information and the kind of protection and improvement in their environments they're all hoping to achieve.

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Larry Spencer: A couple of years ago or so, when I graduated from high school, I went to work for a little card shop. That little card shop came under assault a number of times to become unionized, but that has never happened from that day till now because that company, commonly known as Hallmark Cards, has carried out a number of best practices that have overridden the desire by the people to be unionized. The people had a better situation than they would even have had in the union.

    I've always been idealistic enough to think that our government should be among that quality of employer, where employees would rather be treated fairly right off the top by our government than have to fight through a union situation.

    I have one last quick question. The Labour Code doesn't give the explicit right to workers to refuse overtime. Does that indicate, then, that the employers have the implied right to require workers to work any amount of overtime they want?

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: Let me defer to my colleague Neil Gavigan, who's much more expert in the specific provision of part III of the Labour Code than I.

    Mr. Neil Gavigan (Director, Labour Standards and Workplace Equity, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you.

    Currently, the Canada Labour Code does not provide individuals with the right to refuse overtime. Individuals, however, are protected by the hours-of-work provisions of the Canada Labour Code, which set out as the standard hours of work eight hours per day and 40 hours per week. Employers can require overtime, as a general rule, for up to 48 hours total.

    Now, that being said, Mr. Spencer, there are a number of regulations that apply to specific industries and deal with particular sets of circumstances. There are emergency hours. In some cases in the north there are requirements for companies to make sure railway lines are kept clear, and in winter workers are required to work hours in excess of what they work in the summer months.

    So there are certain regulatory provisions that deal with occupations such as transport drivers, who work in the city or do highway transportation. But the general rule of thumb in the code is 40 hours per week up to 48 with overtime, and there are a number of other regulatory provisions that enable employers to either apply for permission to require excess hours of work or apply certain regulations to their particular industry.

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: If I might, I'll just add one thing and remind people around the table of something. I think I indicated that the last time we reviewed part III of the Canada Labour Code was 1965. A lot has changed in the world of work since 1965, not only technology but the mix of employment, the increase in part-time employment, split shifts, the 24/7, and the continental workweek. I think issues like this need to be examined again in the year 2003 to make sure we get the framework we're going to set for the next number of years as right as we can today. It may very well be that the provisions of the code as they are today may actually have stood the test of time, but we may find we need to make some modifications because the world of work--employment relationships, the hours that are worked today in certain industries, or the flexibilities required by employees and employers--may require a different approach.

    And this is the kind of homework we need to be able to do, to hear from businesses and from labour to get a sense of what kinds of expectations they have in order for them both to remain competitive, both personally competitive and also corporately, if I can use that expression.

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: And hopefully, throughout this study we'll be prepared to give you some advice in some areas you might want to explore when you're doing the legislation.

    Given the time, if I start a new questioner, we won't have enough time to get back to the House, so I'm going to suspend now and come back as soon as we've had the vote.

    Madame Tremblay, you'll be the first on, and then Mr. McCormick and Mr. Finlay.

º  (1601)  

---

º  (1633)  

    The Chair: We will resume our meeting.

    Madame Tremblay, we'll turn the floor over to you.

[Translation]

    Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    First of all, I would like to inform you that tomorrow I shall be sending the clerk notice of a motion that I would like to move on Monday, if I may. Agreed? Thank you.

    Thank you for having waited. It was very kind. I also appreciated the document you submitted. Did your people prepare that for us? Yes.

    I was very surprised to read in the document that the federal government allows preventive withdrawal. I did not think you had that, and I am glad to see you have. It is indicated on page 3 of the document you submitted.

    Would I be correct in saying that, during such preventive leave, the employee would receive only 62 per cent of regular pay, while in Quebec the employee would receive 90 per cent of regular pay because of the CSST?

º  (1635)  

[English]

    Mr. Neil Gavigan: I understand we're speaking about issues of women who are pregnant. The situation with the federal government is that the two pieces of legislation have to be looked at together. Part II of the Canada Labour Code provides a woman who is pregnant or who is nursing a child with the right to withdraw her services if she feels the work situation is at all dangerous to either her fetus or her nursing child. She has the right to have an examination by her doctor, and then between her and her doctor it will be determined whether the job is risky or not risky.

    The second stage, what we provide for under part III of the Canada Labour Code, is to protect the woman's right to stay at work. Where the job has been determined to be dangerous, the employer has an obligation to attempt to reassign her to work that is not unsafe for either the unborn child or the nursing child. If it's not possible or not reasonably practicable for the employer to reassign that individual, then she is entitled to leave without pay. What would happen under those circumstances is that she would take advantage of the employment insurance program, which is often, particularly with the larger companies, supplemented by private insurance or employer top-up. So Madam, I can't say for sure; it's 62% in most cases.

    As you know, Madam Bradshaw tabled a report earlier this year. She had a study done looking at the issue of maternity-related reassignment, and among the observations in that study were that the majority of women working under federal jurisdiction actually worked for larger or medium-sized firms, and in the majority of cases where a situation of potential risk was determined by the women's doctor, the employer was in fact able to reassign that individual. There were very few cases of women having to take leave, and in the cases that were identified, I believe the study indicated that in the majority of those cases the pay was supplemented by the employer.

    Without actually having a survey of each of those individual women--and we obviously don't have access to their individual data--I would find it impossible to say, but it is safe to say that in the majority of cases covered by the study, which surveyed some 675 companies where at least 50% of the employees were under federal jurisdiction, the women were able to stay working because the job was changed or modified for them.

[Translation]

    Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: With respect to studies that have been carried out and based on what you know about the work-family balance, can you tell us whether this is something women are more concerned about, or whether men are concerned about it as well? Is there a difference based on age? Is there a significant difference based on age? For example, young people under 30 are more aware of the work-life balance than the preceding generation was. When our parents begin to age, we become more concerned with such things. Do you have any data on this?

[English]

    Ms. Gay Stinson: The best research available on this is really the research done by Linda Duxbury in her very large survey of employees in the public, private, and not-for-profit sectors. It's that survey that is the subject of her report that was just released on Friday. I don't have that report with me or all of the data.

    However, generally what I can say is that the greatest amount of conflict experienced is for those who work and have dependant care responsibilities. What we know generally is that women usually have more responsibilities for child care, for care of a disabled family member, and for care for the elder generations. So generally speaking, because much of the care requirements for the direct family member or the family-in-law, the mother-in-law, frequently fall to the women, it is slightly more.

    The interesting piece of her research was, however, that while their work-life conflict was across all ages, the issues were different. If a woman is in her reproductive years, for example, the issues are more related to preschool child care. If she is a little bit older, then the issues are related to teenagers, where after work she wonders what they're getting into and possibly how they're going wrong. If the worker is in later middle years, the issue is probably related to caring for the elder generation. So it's across all age levels. It's both women and men, but more on the side of women, largely in relation to those caring responsibilities.

º  (1640)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: May I ask another short question?

[English]

    The Chair: No, but I'll give you the list.

    Mr. McCormick.

    Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I thank the witnesses for being here.

    I just want to check with Mr. Edmondson on his comment about small business, which is my background and my passion. You referred to small trucking companies, and of course there are many other small businesses, but I just wondered, for my information, what constitutes a small business for the Department of Labour and HRDC? What range are we looking at in the number of employees?

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: That's a good question. I don't know if I can actually give you a definition per se, but I think we probably refer to a firm with fewer than 100 employees as being a small business and one with somewhere between 100 and 499 as being what we would characterize as medium-sized.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: I appreciate that. That's a good number and a fair assessment. In the federal government, which I've been a part of for only 10 years, we're finally recognizing a little lower limits for small business. Our country has finally learned how to use the word “entrepreneur” and so on.

    I want to make, Madam Chair, a comment here--which we don't do often enough--about the excellent work from our research people and the Library of Parliament. They do, as everyone around this table knows, provide us with assistance, and it's pretty hard to be all things to all people on so many topics. I want to use one of their questions, because it says “What proportion of employers covered under Part III of the Canada Labour Code operates a small business (say fewer than 20 employees)?” I want to congratulate whoever worked on this.

    Here on the Hill very few people recognize--my own colleagues, our own ministers--the fact that small businesses account for 70% of all the jobs in Canada, yet we talk about 50 to 500 people usually. I'm just wondering, what percentage of companies covered by part III are small businesses?

    Mr. Neil Gavigan: I would say 95% of the companies under part III of the Canada Labour Code are small companies.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: That's very interesting; I hadn't realized that and I'm sure I should have. When we looked at the topics and the categories for part III--the transportation, the interprovincial, and the federal presence--I was thinking we'd hear words such as “banks” and “pipelines”. I'm glad to hear that, and I just wondered if you had any other comments. What categories, what sectors are these from? I must learn more about this.

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: You mentioned the trucking companies earlier. We have a tremendous number of trucking companies, as you know, that cross the borders--

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes, I do. I'm an old trucker.

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: --both provincially and internationally, and we deal them with on a daily basis. There are small radio stations, some smaller broadcasters, courier companies--

    Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you.

    My next question, I think, is more important now than ever to me, the question about how many. You do work, you have inspectors to make sure the employers are following the guidelines somewhat, and most and many will try. Do we have a lot of inspectors out there doing this, and do they find many employers not trying to follow the rules?

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: We have under 200 inspectors--131, I think it is--doing inspections under part III of the Labour Code. We have people out there who answer and deal with complaints under part II of the Labour Code, on safety and health issues, as well. That is not a large number of inspectors, and I must say, much of our work is very reactive. If we had more resources and more people, we would be out there a little more in the preventive mode, trying to give employers information concerning compliance and compliance needs.

    What we have tried to do, because we do have limited resources, is put across the country folks we refer to as early resolution officers, as I said earlier. They are at the front lines in our regional offices and are able to assist employers who are in fact trying to comply with the code, who have no intention of violating the code, but who simply don't understand how to do it.

    We've tried to use our resources effectively that way in a proactive mode, but of course we also have people who are out there to respond to complaints, whether they're safety and health complaints or part III complaints. Perhaps somebody hasn't been paid their vacation pay, or--

    Mr. Larry McCormick: I appreciate that, and I just want to interrupt, if I could, to clarify two things. On the 95% that are small businesses, that's probably referring to the norm accepted by your department, which is 100 employees and less. Does that tie in with that 95%?

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: Yes, that's correct.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you.

    And as these inspectors travel, are called, and inspect, what's the trend? Are we seeing more compliance? What's the usual or the norm out there?

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: I think, based on my years of experience in the department, things are certainly not worse. Employers are actually eager to comply. I could probably get you some information on the trend line, but the experience has been very positive. We still have those employers who will either intentionally or unintentionally violate the code, but by and large, they are seeking information on compliance. I wouldn't say it's a bad news story; I think it's a very good news story. I think more employers are trying to find us, trying to find access, trying to get information, and trying to ensure they do not violate the law.

    Some of it is quite complex. We can look at the hours-of-work provisions, for example. They're quite difficult in some cases to adapt to enterprises and businesses, particularly small ones that need to operate 24/7 or have need to average hours of work. Therefore, you may have people who read the code one way and feel they have a complaint, while the employer thinks the code allows them a certain flexibility. We have a lot of these kinds of things, employers coming to us seeking permits for averaging of hours, for example, which they're required to do should they require people to work non-traditional hours.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.)): Thank you.

    Mr. Finlay.

[English]

    Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I have three comments to make. What we've heard so far has been very interesting. It's one of those areas I think everybody is concerned with. I have four employees and I'm certainly concerned with it.

    I take some solace and some encouragement from many of your comments. I'm reading this from your speaking notes, sir. I note that on page 4 you say managers need to be supportive of workers with family needs and this is the most important message. I think we should underscore that.

    I was a little afraid, Mr. Chairman, when my colleague from the opposition started in about reducing EI premiums, that we were going to get into the idea that if we throw a little more money at this problem, it's going to go away. There's nothing in all the pages I've read or in what I've heard that would suggest for a moment that this would be a solution.

    In light of the fact that the latest word I've read on family income shows that in the last 10 years it's gone up by 20%, it really makes these suggestions of collecting money back from EI quite unimportant. What we need, obviously, are flexibility, compassion, and concern for others on the part of the people who manage time in businesses. That's my first observation.

    The second is that solutions do not directly relate. It says here on page 5 “Mental and nervous disorders now account for roughly 30% of long-term disability claims--double the level of a decade ago.” Again, my point about people earning more money, having more opportunities, buying more cars, and taking more holidays...it isn't that. I think it has more to do, perhaps, with lifestyle.

    In addition, you say that those with high work-life conflict are six times more likely to report high levels of job stress or stress associated with high blood pressure, ulcers, depression, and heart disease, and the estimated cost to industry is $16 billion per year. Now, does that mean what it says, “industry” being where those people are employed? How much cost are we not considering, cost that has been added to health care and legal aid, money wasted on lawsuits, divorces, etc.? I'd suggest to you the cost is probably three times $16 billion per year. We're talking about a matter that's of some great importance, I think.

    The third thing is where it says on page 6 “In other words, research indicates that Canadians are experiencing significant and growing levels of work-life conflict”--and as we said before, it's all very complex--“resulting in costs to individuals, their families, their employers and society as a whole.” This is the point I was trying to make in referring to the other page. This is the direction we should be headed in. How are we going to sort some of these things out? How are we going to help people when they need help? How are we going to recognize that they need help?

    Thanks very much.

º  (1650)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Merci, monsieur Finlay.

    In your report, monsieur deputy minister, on page 5 you say that the estimated cost to industry is $16 billion per year. Where did you get those figures?

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: They're from the latest Duxbury study. That's our estimate, is it not?

[Translation]

    Mr. Laurent Quintal: I can answer that question. A Toronto company has carried out a study on the costs of work stress, which it estimates at $16 billion at present. The study was conducted by Chrysalis, a Toronto consulting firm which recently studied the issue in Canada. I do not have the report here and therefore cannot give you more information, but this is where the data come from. I can provide you with more details on the company and this particular study after the meeting.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): I will now give the floor to Ms. Tremblay.

    Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    We talk about reconciling work and our personal life. But when we say personal life, we mean our family. Family is under provincial jurisdiction. I would like know how you deal with that. That is my first question.

    My second question is this: Like Mr. McCormick, I have been here for 10 years and I hope that I still have some illusions left. But I must say that I am quite depressed some times. For 20 years in Quebec, we have enjoyed all the benefits of the anti-scab legislation. This legislation has been very beneficial for workers.

    How is it that the federal government insists on not letting Canadian workers enjoy the benefits of an anti-scab law, as Quebec workers do? Please don't tell me—like Ms. Bradshaw did—that the code was recently reviewed and that people said they were not interested in an anti-scab law. What they are telling us is that they would indeed like one.

º  (1655)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Does that relate to your field?

[English]

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: It actually is. I'm not sure it's an issue for this particular table simple because of the issue of

[Translation]

anti-scab provisions—this does not come under Part III of the Code—

[English]

    but it is a part of the Canada Labour Code.

    Let me try to answer the question more broadly, if I can, because obviously it's a question you may want to reserve for Minister Bradshaw, not give to me.

    The federal jurisdiction is a jurisdiction with many employers who operate in every jurisdiction in this province. We regulate companies like Air Canada, Nav Canada, VIA Rail, Canadian Pacific, and Canada Post. I can give you a long list of employers who have employees in every part of this country.

    As you know, in every part of this country--Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario--they each have jurisdiction for labour, and in every part of this country the practices are different. In setting our legislative framework or policy, we as a federal government try to meet with our workplace partners, business and labour, through our consultation committees to see if we cannot work out a consensus everybody can live with, one that will meet the needs of both parties as they do business on a day-to-day basis across this country. Whether it's industrial relations legislation or labour standards, we have to try to find some compromises, because we cannot have 12 or 14 different practices.

    We are in a particularly interesting position. I think many jurisdictions look to the federal government to provide some leadership, and I think we have provided some leadership in policy in many areas.

    We have a meeting of ministers of labour once a year and a meeting of deputy ministers of labour twice a year. We try very much to ensure we all understand the policy direction in which we are heading, whether it's amending labour standards or taking into consideration work-life balance issues. Because we try to reduce duplication as much as we can, we try to benefit from each other's studies. For example, they've done some wonderful work in Quebec, which we will take into consideration in our examination of part III issues.

    So we try very much to collaborate with the provinces, to use the studies and the information that are there, but at the same time what we try to do is meet the needs of a jurisdiction that finds itself in every part of this country. I think that by and large we've managed to do that. Certainly, there will be some areas where people will not be satisfied, either on the employer side or on the union side, but by and large, I think we've managed to find a fairly good balance.

[Translation]

    Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: And what about the family, which comes under provincial jurisdiction?

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: We also have federal jurisdiction.

    Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Shared jurisdiction?

[English]

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: No, not necessarily. We have our labour standards, which apply to federally regulated industries. There is really no shared jurisdiction when it comes to a worker who works in a specific industry that is regulated federally. There is no overlap or duplication, no shared jurisdiction. The jurisdiction actually is very clear. The provinces understand it and we understand it very well. If you work in an industry that is federally regulated, it's clearly identified in the Canada Labour Code. You know that if you work in that industry, even though you're located in the province of British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, or Manitoba, you are regulated by the federal labour laws.

    As I said earlier, we very much try to work with the provinces to see if we can't have as much similarity as possible to make it easier for employers and employees. If we could somehow find some harmony between all of the jurisdictions in terms of labour standards in the country, it would make life easier.

    I'll just use this example. Many years ago we worked very hard to try to find a harmonized model between the federal jurisdiction and the provincial jurisdictions in the area of occupational safety and health, believing that it shouldn't be too difficult for us to find a common model to keep people safe at work. We had some difficulty in doing that and we have not yet been able to do it, but we have a tremendous amount of collaboration between the provinces and ourselves, certainly at the officials level and also at the ministerial level. I think we're seeing more and more collaboration and common practice, trying to find common ground in establishing a legislative framework at the federal level and also at the provincial level. The communication is actually very good.

»  (1700)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Jackson.

    Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): I'd like to ask our guest this. A lot of women are entering the workplace. They're always the ones who are sensitive and always the ones who take care of the kids. In a lot of cases now they are becoming brighter, being able to do more work than the guys because the guys still have this macho approach to life. My question to our guest is, notwithstanding the fact that both males and females sometimes work at home--I guess you say bye to the kids and you go down to the basement to your office and turn the computer on or whatever happens--what are some of the challenges we have and maybe some of the futuristic things you've looked at as a part of the government that looks at work trends and so on?

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: There are numerous challenges, and I'm sure Linda Duxbury--I understand she's going to be before the committee--will lay them out much better and with much more enthusiasm and emotion than I can. As a good bureaucrat, one tends to be somewhat unemotional and very practical, and one also considers the balance of interest of employers and employees when dealing with labour policy.

    I think, from my perspective, there's no question that some of the biggest challenges are around how work has changed in the last ten or twenty years. Obviously, the use of technology has changed work tremendously in every domain. Everybody acknowledges that today people do not expect to work for a company for their entire lifetime; it doesn't happen today as it did when our parents were working. The question of the movement of individuals from company to company over a period of time in their lifetime presents certain challenges, I think, for employers and for policy-makers in terms of the portability of certain conditions of employment.

    To what extent does the current legislation look after the needs of employees? Perhaps employers, who would have looked after some of these issues years ago in a lifetime working relationship, aren't doing that any longer. I think some of the challenges are around changing employment relationships.

    Again, not too many years ago you would join a company or firm and expect to have a relationship with that employer directly for many years. Today we're finding that either many employees do not work full-time but work part-time or they work on contract, where they're somewhat self-employed although they work exclusively for that employer. You will find many employees out there today who actually go every day to a workplace that is the same workplace, but in fact they are not employees of that employer. They're hired through a third party, through a contractor. Where is the employment relationship and what is the liability of the original employer? Those are questions this committee will, I'm sure, be curious about when looking at changing employment relationships. Those are challenges for us.

    Does the 1965 legislative model meet the needs of workers in the modern workplace? Does it meet the needs of employers in the modern workplace who are probably looking for greater flexibility than they would have had in the past? They have to respond to competitive challenges in a globalized economy, they have to move quickly, they have to adjust, they have to make adjustments to cost measures, and so on and so forth.

    It's difficult. There are a lot of interesting stories and anecdotal evidence out there, but the challenge is for us to get a really firm handle on what has changed, on what it means for employers, on what policy options there are, and on how you regulate in such a way that you don't make the employer uncompetitive while at the same time trying to afford the maximum of protection for the employees who are working in those modern-day workplaces.

    The other challenge relates to the second question, what about the rate of trade union density? In organizations where employees are represented by unions, by and large, their protections are superior to what you'll find in labour standards. The reality is that in this country and around the world today, for whatever reason, trade union density is declining. Unions are representing fewer workers in workplaces. Therefore, it seems to me that the labour standards upon which the non-organized employers are relying, standards by which they're regulated, become the instrument to protect workers, not necessarily the collective agreement.

    So if trade unions are unsuccessful in keeping up the organizing campaigns and if this trend should continue--having regulation become, in effect, the collective agreement of the unorganized, if I can use that term--the protective instrument is going to become more and more important to more and more Canadians. The importance of part III of the Labour Code is increasing, not diminishing, as time goes by.

»  (1705)  

    I suppose if the trade union movement had organized everybody in the country, probably very few people would be relying on labour standards because the negotiated collective agreements would probably have standards well in excess of what the norms are in law presently. But the reality is that more and more workers in the modern-day economy are relying on labour standards--or on private contracts if they have negotiated personal service contracts with their employers.

    Mr. Ovid Jackson: Do you have a percentage of the population that is actually working in that particular niche?

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: No, I don't.

    The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

    Mr. John Finlay: The Labour Code will have to have some provisions to get some money to pay for the necessary benefits from the employers or else from the general taxpayer, one or the other. That's where it's going to have to come from, not from union members, because there won't be enough of them.

    The Chair: He's nodding in the affirmative.

    Mr. McCormick, very briefly.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: On the long-distance truckers, I heard quite a bit of talk there a year or two ago about the hours that were allowed these people. Perhaps you're the right people to bring me up to date on whether that did become law. Most people in this city will eat sometime tomorrow, but without truckers people would not eat and we wouldn't have what's in this room. These people are great people, but if we do have to regulate it, the industry....

    Mr. Warren Edmondson: Mr. McCormick, I believe.... The reason I hesitate is because trucking industry hours of work are actually the responsibility of Transport Canada. We do not regulate in that industry, but I believe the regulation has been amended and is in force. I can look into that for you and get you that if you'd like. It was very controversial, no question.

    The Chair: The transport committee was seized with that for quite some time.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: If I could, I'd like to have that brief. I think it ties into this because we have so many people out there trucking and they're suffering too.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: On behalf of committee members, I want to thank you, particularly in view of our absence as we went back to the House to take care of some housekeeping. The bells are going to start to ring in a few minutes, but Mr. Edmondson, thank you, and I thank those who are with you today.

    I know you're going to be watching with great interest as we proceed with our examination of work-life balance.

    The meeting is adjourned.