LABOUR

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Would the Committee of Supply come to order, please.

This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Labour. We are on Resolution 11.1 Labour Executive (a) Minister's Salary.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, I had a couple of questions and possibly a few statements to be made on this particular department. I appreciate the effort that is fairly apparent that the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) has put forward in terms of questioning the minister on a wide variety of areas within the Department of Labour.

As opposed to posing specific questions, I had decided that I would just get some general comments regarding the Department of Labour during the ministerial comments, and then from our perspective allow the department to pass, primarily because of the concentration of efforts that I have had to put into Health and Finance and so forth.

Mr. Chairperson, we have always believed that the Department of Labour is an area to which the government does not give the type of attention which we believe is warranted. We often hear about labour stats, and whenever you hear of labour stats, depending if you are in opposition, I guess, to a certain degree, or you are in government, you interpret it in many different ways.

Whenever I get the opportunity to sit down with people to talk about labour stats, one of the biggest discussions, hotly debated discussions, is with respect to older people, individuals who have been in the workforce and for whatever reasons have ultimately been put into some sort of a training or retraining mode as a result of downsizing or just a permanent layoff, whatever it might be, and the response from the government is very important. We have other chronic unemployment in terms of high unemployment stats with our youth, and that is again another area in which we have a great deal of concern.

* (1450)

Obviously, Mr. Chairperson, you will then have everything in between. When we look at labour and the requirements of labour, we reflect back on the past few decades, and you will see 30 years ago when an individual was able to walk into a position and anticipate that they would be able to make a career out of that job. Today, more and more, we are seeing individuals having to acquire skills that are transferrable from one job to another job, and that is absolutely important in today's educational system.

What we have tried to do is bridge some of the strengths of the Department of Labour, in particular areas such as apprenticeship, tried to bridge some of those with the Department of Education, where there needs to be more of an emphasis on apprenticeship-type joint co-operatives, work-related training, being provided. That, in essence, is more of a long-term and ultimately even a short-term strategy that has to be adopted.

I am curious how the Minister of Labour sees the Department of Labour and the Department of Education working together to address the labour needs of the future, keeping in mind those two categories that I made reference to at the very beginning; that, of course, being the 55-year-old individual who has found himself or herself out of work and the student from Grade 12 who is looking at somewhat bleak prospects in many areas. I am interested in hearing from the minister with respect to how he feels the Department of Education and the Department of Labour should be working together.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): As the member opposite is aware, the responsibility for apprenticeship and training has been transferred over to the Department of Education. It was done for a very important reason, and that is, most of the funding from the federal government came to the Department of Education. It was felt that with the funding structure from the federal government, it would be more appropriate to have apprenticeship and training in the Department of Education. Unfortunately, the best-laid plans sometimes go awry, given that the funding that we relied on with the federal government to the Department of Education dried up, to a great extent, and we have had to work very hard to maintain the level of apprenticeship and training programs in our provincial Department of Education. So that has been a very difficult time for the department.

I appreciate the member's question related more to the relationship between Labour and Education. I think, even though one has that very close relationship with Education and the apprenticeship and training, the Department of Labour still has a role to play in developing apprenticeship and training.

For example, one of things that has concerned me very, very much over the last number of years is The Construction Industry Wages Act, which deals with many apprenticeship-type of programs and regulates the wage scale of people working in various trades.

Now, I have been approached by small business people who say that the wage rates under The Construction Industry Wages Act make it prohibitive for them to retain apprentices beyond that apprenticeship stage, that is, once they become journeymen, The Construction Industry Wages Act kicks in, and they can no longer afford to retain them. So they are saying, should there not be some more flexibility in the act in order for us to be able to retain those workers and continue their very practical education?

That is not happening now. For example, if one looks at the residential housing industry, there are essentially no employees in that residential housing construction industry. What has happened very, very unfortunately is, in an attempt to get around the act and the prohibitive wage rates, the contractors have essentially subcontracted the work, so the work that used to be done by employees who would then be under the supervision of the contractor, who was often a skilled trades person himself, is now done by subtrades, with the unfortunate effect that they do not receive that constant kind of mentoring and supervision that a true apprenticeship program requires. So legislation such as that has got to be examined to ensure that we are not at crosspurposes in our training and the legal schemes that are in place. That is one very concrete example that I bring the member's attention.

As the member may well know, there has been a review of The Construction Industry Wages Act since 1991, and I know one of his colleagues, the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), would be very familiar with The Construction Industry Wages Act and the ramifications of that act on small business people and mid-sized business people. Very frankly, it is an area where we as government have to sit down with employers, with contractors and with the trade unions to ensure that we develop channels where employees can come into the workforce as young people, perhaps right out of high school, and there is a set program for them in co-operation with the employer to ensure that that training continues right to the journeyman stage and that that employment continue on and is not artificially terminated because of prohibitive wage rates.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I know within the Department of Labour there are certain legal requirements of companies once they lay off, as an example, a specific number of people, that they are required by law to inform the Department of Labour. I was under the impression that there are still some support services that the Department of Labour provides. I am wondering if the minister would maybe just comment in terms of to what then degree does the department--not really the specifics per se, but generally speaking, what does the Department of Labour feel its responsibilities are, more of a direct type of retraining as opposed to the indirect through legislation on the wages act? That is something else which I will get into in a few minutes.

Mr. Toews: Clearly the direction that the department is going, and given the removal of its primary responsibility for apprenticeship and training, is more in a facilitating role. For example, where there is the layoff notice that is given under The Employment Standards Act, the department has a workforce adjustment unit then that assists in setting up a committee to ensure that, if there are jobs that these people can go to, that process take place. The department no longer gets involved in the granting of money to facilitate that, but clearly in terms of facilitating work with new employers the department's responsibility continues, and we in fact have a very active branch. In respect of any detail, unfortunately I was not anticipating this line of questioning at this time, but I would be more than happy to provide the member with that kind of detail, the extent of the unit's involvement when it receives notification of downsizing.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, specifically what I am looking for is more so the department's role to date, because it has changed quite significantly over the last few years, as the minister himself alludes to the fact that a lot of the responsibilities are now being administered through the Department of Education. What I am specifically looking for is the communication that is between the Department of Education and the Department of Labour regarding labour issues and particularly anything to do with training, retraining.

The Apprenticeship Program is fairly straightforward, but as I said from the onset, the special consideration that I believe has to be given is to those just entering the workforce for the first time and those who have been in the workforce but for whatever reasons are looking at having to change after a number of years. I am looking again around that 50-plus age. That specifically in terms of what it is that I am looking for, to see if in fact--because I would imagine that the Department of Labour is more in tune in some areas than the Department of Education would be with respect to the economy and where things are happening in the economy, and it would have some sort of a role of planning along with the Department of Education in order to meet potential demands in the future or to be able to anticipate some of the changes that are going to occur.

The minister made reference to an issue which I was going to bring up, but in a different way, and that was with respect to wage scales. One of the things that we have done within the Department of Health is talked about the possibility of having wage scales for home care service providers. Can the minister indicate, are there other groups outside of home construction industry where there is other wage scales other than the minimum wage?

Mr. Toews: Yes, The Construction Industry Wages Act does not just deal with residential housing construction. It deals with all forms of construction, and it is a very extensive regulation of the construction industry wages in this province. There are essentially three wage scales, each of which have numerous classifications outlining exactly the minimum wage applicable to each of the trades, and depending on what level you are at what level you are going to be paid. So, for example, the journeyman carpenter would make--and I am just guessing here because I do not have the facts--in the city of Winnipeg $25 an hour, let us say in around that rate. An apprentice would have a substantial less amount of money that he or she would be paid. So the three wage scales deal with heavy construction, rural and city of Winnipeg, essentially. In each of those schedules there are numerous classifications, but it all relates to the construction industry. The construction industry in Manitoba, in terms of its wage rates, is perhaps the most highly regulated of any province in Canada. I am not aware of any province that would have the extensive regulation of construction industry wages.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I am interested in the minister's thoughts on the home care service providers and how--or if that is something that could be incorporated into an act of similar nature, or--first just a general response to that particular question.

* (1500)

Mr. Toews: I have to indicate to the member that I think the best way of resolving wages is through a collective bargaining process. As the member knows, the minimum wage in Manitoba is approximately $5.40 under the general employment standards regulation. The home care workers at present will earn anywhere between $8 and $11 an hour, and that has been achieved essentially through collective bargaining.

I think a collective bargaining situation is very responsive to market conditions, and, therefore, it is, I think, the best mechanism of determining what is a fair wage in any particular situation. What concerns me about the regulation of wages beyond minimum wages by government is that regulation often results in people being dispossessed of work. For example, in Saskatchewan, there was a proposal that all part-time employees receive benefits in the same way that full-time workers would receive benefits. This was touted as a great step towards equity for part-time workers. On the face of it, the argument is very attractive, but, in effect, what happened, because of the cost necessary to maintain those benefits, employers, rather than providing part-time benefits, simply laid those people off or reduced hours so that part-time workers, instead of having two jobs, were forced to have three jobs.

The experience in Saskatchewan as a result of that regulation, and I appreciate it deals with benefits and not wages specifically, is that it has been an unmitigated disaster, that is, approximately 7 percent of the part-time workers now receive benefits under this Saskatchewan plan which was intended to cover benefits for almost 100 percent of part-time workers. So regulation has created tremendous hardship for the part-time workers by destroying their jobs or in fact requiring them to find an additional part-time job as opposed to the two part-time jobs that they have.

So, when we look at regulation, let us make sure that we are not harming the people that we set out to help. I think many of the same comments can be made about The Construction Industry Wages Act, that is, jobs in residential construction, in my opinion, are being destroyed because of the wage regulations. Now, there are clearly good social policy arguments to be made that the construction industry requires higher minimum wages than the general minimum wage, but I think what has happened under The Construction Industry Wages Act is that wages set under that act now become the going rate rather than the minimum wage. I appreciate the member is looking at minimum wages rather than going rates or establishing essentially wage and price controls. I do not think that is what he is getting into. At the moment, I do not see a better alternative than a vigorous collective bargaining relationship to ensure fair wages are being paid to workers.

So, at this time, I have no intention of expanding The Construction Industry Wages Act beyond the situation it is in because I feel that act has done sufficient damage to one sector of the economy, and we really should be looking at how we can use that act to reform that economy and revitalize it again.

Mr. Lamoureux: I wonder if the minister could give some sort of indication, and he will have to excuse me if he has already introduced it, of when we could anticipate because, in listening to the minister, I am under the impression that this is an area in which he has some intentions on moving forward on, on reforming the act. Has the minister any time frame that he is operating under?

Mr. Toews: The member for Transcona raised that issue with me as well. I appreciate the member could not be here for all of the questioning because he was very busy with some of the other committees, but there have been studies conducted in respect to The Construction Industry Wages Act since 1991 by the Labour Management Review Committee and then the subcommittee in respect of construction, and I believe that there were two separate reports that came out, one containing over a hundred recommendations and the other containing about 54 recommendations.

Unfortunately, it is an act where there is no consensus as to what to be done with the problem that we have. Unionized employers often side with unions on certain issues, nonunionized employers will be at odds with unionized employers or unions, depending on what the issue is. So the amendments that I intend to bring forward, and I cannot really get into the details of those now, simply scratch the surface. I have announced my intention for the last perhaps six months--and I can speak about this--that the act should not really be in the residential construction industry where it effectively, the act, has destroyed all employer-employee relationships. So it is really not even being followed in that industry, because there are no more employment relationships there, and that is really unfortunate.

Getting back to the member's earlier question about apprenticeship, you know, we can have a great apprenticeship program, a great journeyman program--or do they call them journey persons now?--we can have these great programs, but if the legislation itself is counterproductive and destroys the practical applications of the training, then we have really got to take a look at the legislation. But the amendments that I will be looking at are nowhere near the extent that has been recommended by unions, employers or individual workers. There is simply no consensus in this province as to what direction to move in.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I appreciate the minister's offer, which is to allow for our office to become better acquainted with the legislation that is before us. I am anticipating that in the fall time the minister will be tested, and tested well I would assume, in terms of the legislation that is being brought forward. No doubt there will be a certain amount of resistance to it, and we will wait until that time, and possibly even a little bit earlier, during the summer. Labour law is something in which I know as a caucus we are going to be putting some special effort into, given the legislation that the minister has currently on the Order Paper. We might still see more, and we will get better acquainted with the content of that legislation.

At this time, Mr. Chairperson, what I would ask is that in previous Labour Estimates the minister would--I believe even had called in other staff to deal with Workers Compensation. I do have a couple of questions regarding Workers Compensation and would just look to the Chair to get some information or some guidance on when would be the appropriate time to be asking Workers Compensation questions.

Mr. Toews: There are separate Estimates dealing with the Workers Compensation Board.

An Honourable Member: Committee.

* (1510)

Mr. Toews: Committee, that is correct. It is a separate committee that will deal with those Estimates, and so now is not the appropriate time to deal with Workers Compensation. [interjection] No, a separate committee.

Mr. Chairperson: After this we will deal with Civil Service, and I believe the Workers Compensation is in the other--it is a separate committee outside of this House. There are no Estimates for Workers Comp.

Mr. Lamoureux: Having said that, Mr. Chairperson, I do know the former, former minister, Mr. Connery, and I had Workers Compensation discussions, and he did have some staff here. That followed right after we debated the Labour Estimates. But I will abide by what has been suggested.

Suffice to say, Mr. Chairperson, I would be interested in getting some information from the Minister of Labour. Instead of maybe taking notes specifically of what I am suggesting or going to ask, he can just make a note of it after getting Hansard because it is some fairly specific stuff that I would like from Workers Compensation.

In particular, over the years, I can recall when I was first elected and the mess that Workers Compensation was in, and it was an absolute disaster. I think at that time I was receiving a phone call every week of individuals that were being given the runaround. It seems, at least on the surface, that things have changed quite dramatically since then.

One of the bones of contention that I have always had with Workers Compensation is the way in which appeals are conducted and handled, and the type of information that I am looking for is very specific relating to the number of appeals that go from the initial adjudication to the supervisor or the first level of appeal, and that go from the first level of appeal to the appeal board. That is my understanding, and I believe nothing has changed on that.

In addition to those numbers and percentages being beneficial, I am very much interested in the number of cases that are heard at the final appeal level that are actually ruled in favour of the client. In addition to that, I am looking for the percentage of cases that are being made in front of the appeal board of individuals by themselves--they are making self-presentation--and individuals that are being represented, in particular, by lawyers.

I am hoping--and hopefully the minister will be able to get me those numbers in the not- too-distant future--that we will not see an increase in the reliance of lawyers. One of the things that we would like to be able to do is to see that the appeal system is working in such a fashion that it does not necessarily require a lawyer, I have ultimately argued; and then I would look for the other percentage of doctors that are participating in the appeal decision, primarily because I do feel that the doctor is in an excellent position to be able to add to any questions that the appeal board might hear. So I am interested in knowing how many more people are relying on doctors, let us say, over lawyers. Hopefully, we see the number of individuals has not increased.

An interesting stat that I have had, and I have had this discussion a few years back with the Workers Comp board members, is the number of successful cases where a lawyer is used and no representation is given. Again, if you could tag in doctors, that would be an additional bonus. Again, you are talking about percentages compared to a previous year because what I am looking for is some sort of indication of, are we moving forward or are we moving backward?

Hopefully, I will have the information in which, at some point in time in the not-too-distant future, I will be able to pose more specific questions of the minister in terms of the general direction of Workers Compensation, but, suffice to say, it appears that, at least on the surface, only because of the number of phone calls that I receive, there has been some progress at the Workers Compensation. So this is one of the ways in which we feel that we can measure it.

If the minister could make some sort of a commitment, I would appreciate his getting me those types of figures.

Mr. Toews: I have taken note of the member's request. I think it is a reasonable one. I will take it right out of Hansard and send that over to the Workers Compensation Board and see what kind of statistics they can provide me with.

The whole issue of the involvement of lawyers before quasi-judicial tribunals, not just the Workers Compensation Board or others, even small claims court, for example, is a particularly thorny one. There is always the suggestion that when lawyers get involved, sometimes the justice of the situation gets off the rails. I know that has been suggested to me, and I am speaking as a lawyer. I am very concerned that we protect these tribunals, the informality, the summary nature of these tribunals so that the ordinary citizen can access these tribunals without the requirement of expensive legal help and in fact not be at a disadvantage. I think that is what the member is getting at.

The member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) raised the whole issue of worker advisors. Of course, that comes under the Department of Labour, and they have had a very, very active role in ensuring that workers are given a fair hearing and that their case is fully understood by the Workers Compensation Board. There has been tremendous success of these advisors who act as advisors rather than as legal counsel. If the member examines Hansard, there would be quite an extensive discussion of that involvement, both my introductory remarks and some of the questioning by the member for Transcona.

I will attempt to get those statistics for him, and I thank him for bringing that issue to my attention.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I just have a few questions here that were remaining from the Main Estimates process for the Department of Labour.

I want to ask the minister, can he tell me, because this is an issue that has been raised in this Chamber here during Question Period, has Mr. Hugh Goldie been hired by the Department of Labour in any capacity, for tendered or untendered contracts, to perform any work on behalf of the Department of Labour or for the Minister of Labour or for any other government functions for which the Department of Labour may be paying the bill?

Mr. Toews: I am not aware of any contract which Mr. Hugh Goldie has been awarded by the Department of Labour. I do not have any briefing notes specifically in that respect regarding the Department of Labour, but I will specifically ask the deputy minister and staff to examine whether in fact any such contract has been awarded and the process.

Mr. Reid: If the minister could also indicate too in his response whether or not Mr. Goldie has been hired in any capacity by the Department of Labour, and if the minister could include in his response whether he has that information available here today or perhaps when his deputy minister or the minister may respond at some time, hopefully, in the very near future.

Mr. Toews: I did not want to get technical about that. If Mr. Goldie has been hired by the Department of Labour in some capacity, I will advise the member opposite.

* (1520)

Mr. Reid: If the minister would also indicate, should Mr. Goldie have been hired in any capacity by the Minister of Labour or the Department of Labour, what the dollar value of that contract, whether the contract was tendered or untendered, and what type of work Mr. Goldie, if he is indeed hired by the department, is performing on behalf of the department. I would appreciate that information from the minister as well.

Mr. Toews: Yes, all available information that will come to my attention, I will provide to the member relating to those issues.

Mr. Reid: I want to ask the minister, because we were somewhat disappointed that prior to the minister's first reading of the legislation, Bill 26, The Labour Relations Amendment Act, in the Chamber here prior to Question Period today, we note that on Saturday there was an article in the Winnipeg Free Press indicating what the minister's plans were with respect to this legislation. We were disappointed that the minister did not see in some way that the House was apprised of what the contents of that legislation were prior to its being released to the general public so that we might have had the opportunity to see it first-hand. We still, to this point, Mr. Chairperson, have not received a copy of that legislation, even though the minister has taken first reading of it.

Because there were a couple of criteria changes that were indicated in the media and I want to determine whether or not they are accurate and what the minister's policy is, I want to ask the minister: Are the criteria--this is relating to policy. I am not sure whether it is within the rules or the bounds of the rules here to ask specific questions of the legislation since we do not have a copy of it in front of us, and I am relating to the news article--whether or not and what criteria the minister will use to determine when the minister will invoke the mandatory vote process, because it is quoted in the news article as saying when it is in the public interest. I want to know what criteria the minister will use to determine “in the public interest.”

Mr. Chairperson: I know where the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) is coming from on the policy side, but in stating the policy side he is also discussing a newspaper article about legislation that has already been on the Order Paper and notice has been given, as well as today it received first reading. I would have to rule that we cannot have any discussion about the bill.

Mr. Toews: I am prepared to release that briefing paper to the member for Transcona. I have not gone beyond that briefing paper in my discussions. As the member knows, I have been discussing possible amendments to The Labour Relations Act over the past year. That was an issue that has not been previously discussed in as public a fashion, but, given that the briefing note is already in the public domain, provided that it does not offend some privilege, I would release a copy of that to the member for his information.

Mr. Chairperson: Just to inform the minister, the briefing notes are not a concern of this committee. They are his property.

Mr. Reid: I appreciate the minister releasing a copy of the briefing note to us, but it is in the public realm already. So, if the minister wishes to send across, by all means we would look forward to receiving that.

Also, I want to ask the minister because he did not answer the more specific question with respect to policy: What is the policy of the minister and his government with respect to determining what public interest will dictate the minister invoking the vote to be taken by the employees of a specific bargaining unit, which may or may not be contrary to the wishes of the democratically elected members of the union body?

Mr. Chairperson: Now we are going into the rule of anticipation because what we are doing now is looking at what or anticipating what this act would do that is on the Notice Paper at this time. It is a very grey area that we are dealing with this matter at this time.

The honourable member for Transcona, to rephrase his question.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I do not have another opportunity outside of general debate, which is not two-way debate, in this Chamber. When the legislation is tabled, each member of the House has the opportunity to stand up in their place in this Chamber and to put on record their comments with respect to various pieces of legislation that come before us. This is the only opportunity that we have to have a two-way debate or dialogue seeking policy and giving opinions or reasons why certain actions are being taken on the part of government. That is why I am hoping to have some clarification from the minister with respect to the policy of the government and the criteria that the government may use to determine when they would like to have specific votes take place, and this is the only opportunity that is afforded to me and other members of the House to ask those specific questions.

That is why I am asking the opportunity to ask those questions that, since the minister has already taken the opportunity here prior to Question Period today to undertake first reading of Bill 26, and this is the only opportunity that we will have to ask specific policy questions, that is why I am asking what the criteria are with respect to that.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Just for the information of the committee, the honourable member for Transcona's rule is Rule 36, where it says, “No Member shall . . . anticipate a matter appointed for consideration of which notice has been given.” The honourable member has stated that he has no other time in which to enter into debate with the minister. There is second reading of the bill as well as committee stage of the bill. [interjection] Committee stage can be the two-way affair that the honourable member is asking for if that is what he so wishes, but we do not anticipate or we do not debate bills at this committee level, and that is what the rules state. I can also find it in Beauchesne if the honourable member wants.

We are going into a grey area. I have ruled a number of times that I would not allow us to move into the area of debating legislation at this committee level, so I would ask for the co-operation of the honourable members here.

Mr. Toews: Perhaps, if I can just very generally state--and I respect the committee's ruling--that this type of legislation or the concept is not new. It is already in place in numerous other provinces where various criteria or protocol have been developed in that respect. So if one looks at that other legislation in other provinces and the way in which it has been applied in those other provinces, perhaps the member would get an understanding of how this has been done in other provinces. I do not know if I can go any further than saying that.

Mr. Reid: Well, then, Mr. Chairperson, if this will facilitate the debate so that we do not have to wait till the month of October in this year, when it is more likely that we will have the committee opportunity to debate or to have the two-way dialogue on any pieces of legislation before us, perhaps I can leave with the minister then--or if the minister chooses to comment here-- questions that are on my mind with respect to his legislation as it was outlined in the news report that was allegedly based on the minister's briefing note which the minister seems to indicate here that it was, the criteria that are to be used in determining when the minister would invoke the employee right to vote on a particular offer, and since it would be invoked in the sense of the minister's discretion based on public interest, the criteria the minister would use to determine public interest and also that the minister, because it also indicates that the briefing note spells out that the minister would have the ability to invoke the vote on any particular offer, a vote by the employees, that would be called for by the employers that those employees would be working for.

When will the minister listen to the call of the employers that are calling for the vote, and why is the minister only listening to the employers, because it was my understanding that the minister's government, prior to him being elected to this Chamber, ruled out final offer selection. One of the arguments that they used at the time, and I know the member for Riel (Mr. Newman) also remembers this quite clearly, was that FOS in their minds was not fair and reasonable because it only empowered the employees to have the vote to determine whether or not they would call for some resolution of the matter. Now the minister is saying that he wants to put that power into the hands of the employer.

* (1530)

How is it fair that we put--[interjection] Pardon me? Or the minister wants to put the power into the hands of the employer. How is it fair that his government ruled out final offer selection because it was unfair because it did not empower employers and employees equally at the same time, and now he is saying that he wants to put that power into the hands of the employers?

So I will leave those two specific questions with the minister, and when he does his second reading on this piece of legislation which may occur in the next couple of days, perhaps he can answer those questions for us.

I want to ask the minister also, who will be affected? What is covered under the umbrella, and I will leave this with the minister.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Now, I have been listening very carefully, and I understand where the member is getting his information from, and I have no qualms with that, but my concern is we are discussing now the exact legislation that has been tabled before the House.

The minister has already recognized or stated that the briefing notes that the member is reading from are exactly what the legislation is that is before the House on notice at this time.

So we are debating the actual legislation, and that is not appropriate at this time, according to our rules, so I would ask the honourable member to change his line of questioning at this time.

Mr. Reid: Well, I appreciate the latitude that you have given, Mr. Chairperson.

I just had one point I wanted to leave with the minister because I know we are not allowed to debate a legislation that is not before us, so when the minister comments, perhaps he can comment on who will be covered under the umbrella of the legislation so that we have some clear understanding of the extent or the magnitude which the legislation is intended to affect.

I will leave that with the minister, as well, and I have at this point, Mr. Chairperson, no other questions to ask.

Mr. Chairperson: This completes the Estimates of the Department of Labour. The next set of Estimates that will be considered by this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates of the Civil Service Commission.

Shall we briefly recess to allow the minister and the critic the opportunity to prepare for the commencement of the next set of Estimates? No? Okay, we are prepared.