I would say that the discussions are going very well. There is no doubt that if people are coming to talk to you, they are most likely unhappy about something. Having said that, I believe that relations between workers and the House, as an employer, are very good and that the benefits are truly excellent. Indeed, people working here on a part-time basis would like to have the same benefits.
If a competition is held for a position in a restaurant and that position is currently filled by a part-time employee, that employee can take part in the competition. He could be given the job. You have cited the example of someone being laid off because a young person arrives to fill a position. But there is something here that I don't quite understand. Perhaps we could discuss this privately. Sometimes people take part in a competition but do not get the job. That may be the case here, but I can tell you that any competitions that we hold are conducted properly and resolved fairly. I am very confident that this is the case.
As regards health and safety, I think we need to be careful there as well. The Canada Labour Code does not apply here, to the House of Commons, because the House is a parliamentary institution, and thus parliamentary privileges prevail. However, all House of Commons employees are subject to a health and safety policy that was adopted by the Board of Internal Economy. In some cases, where employees have a collective agreement but where their bargaining unit was not willing to adopt that health and safety policy, they retain whatever is already provided for under the collective agreement.
An employee who believes he has been adversely affected can invoke either his collective agreement, or the policy applied at the House of Commons. He really has the best of both worlds. I believe that we take health and safety issues very seriously here.
Of course, Part 3 of the Cabinet and Caucus Employees Act has not been proclaimed, and that is something the unions have been requesting for a very long time.