PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 9--Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I move, seconded by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), that
WHEREAS fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) is a disease that affects unborn children caused by the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy; and
WHEREAS FAS is one of the leading causes of mental retardation in Canada; and
WHEREAS FAS causes neurological abnormalities and physical deformities; and
WHEREAS the number of babies born to substance-abusing mothers in Manitoba continues to rise; and
WHEREAS the likelihood of FAS increases with the amount of alcohol consumed, there is no known safe level of alcohol consumption during pregnancy; and
WHEREAS FAS is entirely preventable; and
WHEREAS there is no known cure for FAS; and
WHEREAS the cost to the provincial government to treat one victim of FAS from birth until age 18 is estimated at $2 million; and
WHEREAS the social costs of the lost potential of the victims of FAS is immeasurable.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this Assembly recommend to the Minister of Health that he consider working with the Committee on Alcohol and Pregnancy to develop and promote programs to prevent FAS in high-risk populations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the Minister of Health and Education to work co-operatively to ensure the school curriculum includes information on the link between alcohol consumption and FAS.
Motion presented.
Mr. Kowalski: I am glad to bring this resolution forward. This should not be viewed in any way as an attack or criticism of this government's handling of the issue but rather an opportunity for all members of this Assembly to come together and acknowledge the importance of this issue of fetal alcohol syndrome.
In doing the research on this resolution, and looking through a previous Hansard, I know that this issue was first brought forward in 1990 by Sharon Carstairs when she first raised the issue. In the following debates over the years, one thing I noticed is that in most cases the parties were united in their concern for this issue.
I noted in the spring's Estimates process, when the then Liberal Health critic Avis Gray and the member for Kildonan were in the Estimates process with the Minister of Health, this issue did come up. I noted that from Hansard this government is doing things in dealing with the issue. I noted that the committee on alcohol and pregnancy is an active intersectoral committee cochaired by the Manitoba Medical Association and the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba. To date their activities involve the development of an FAS and FAE resource network, raising awareness through northern consultations and working with representative parent groups.
In talking to members of that committee today, they are very happy with their work. They want to do more, and this resolution is nothing more than to encourage them and send a message that this Assembly is asking the government to continue in the vein of looking at this very important issue.
I understand that the committee has done a draft of a proposal that will be submitted to the Children and Youth Secretariat regarding improved diagnostic services and the need for a provincial co-ordinator. We look forward to that report being issued by the committee.
Just for the further information of the members, just going further into FAS, I think the resolution speaks for itself, but FAS is caused by abuse of intoxicating substances. The syndrome is characterized by a combination of central nervous system dysfunction, growth deficiency and learning disorders.
Estimates vary in the numbers of affected children. Confirmed cases range from .3 per thousand births to one in every thousand births. The real tragedy is, all of these are preventable. There is some debate on how much alcohol consumption is acceptable during a pregnancy, but I think it would be wise for a woman to consume no more than one alcoholic drink per day, as according to the British Medical Journal of 1991, but that is debatable.
In a recent New England medical journal article--in fact, some studies have indicated that it is beneficial for a pregnant woman, but we do not want to send mixed signals. We have children being born in Manitoba with FAS to certain targeted groups. Four years ago the Yukon Liquor Corporation began affixing labels to liquor and wine bottles and beer cartons warning of the dangers of FAS. In an earlier resolution this session the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) commented on this, and in an earlier question from the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) they talked about the labelling of bottles.
I am not convinced that the labelling of bottles is the way to proceed. I am sure the committee is looking at that. Quite often what happens is women who are the heaviest drinkers and thus a greater risk are unlikely to read the warning labels, so the value of those warning labels has to be thought about before we spend large amounts of money or have anyone else spend large amounts on something that would be ineffective in the search of just doing something. Women who drink heavily are identified as being at the greatest risk of FAS. Prevention of alcohol-related birth defects requires developmental programs directed as specific needs of these women.
A national study done by Angus Reid in 1991 noted that 92 percent of the population was aware that excessive consumption of alcohol causes FAS. Amongst women of child-bearing age, it indicated 95 percent of the women were aware of it. So the 5 percent who were not, they are the targeted group, and they are the ones that we have to take measures with. Again, we should compliment the work that is being done by the committee on alcohol and pregnancy and encourage them to continue on their work.
My own personal experience as a police officer in the core area, and as the Justice minister has said earlier, in the system there is a direct link between FAS and the criminal justice system in that many of the people who are mildly affected with FAS end up in our jails and prisons at a cost to taxpayers. I have arrested a 15-year-old girl the day after she had given birth to an FAS child to find herself out prostituting herself on the street to garner money so she could once again purchase more intoxicants. Again, the next child she would have would be another cost to the taxpayers of Manitoba, not even to mention the personal tragedy that child will face for the rest of his life.
So, again, I ask all members to look at the resolution. I welcome any constructive amendments to this resolution, and that we join together to address this issue.
* (1610)
Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Madam Speaker, I share the feelings of the honourable member for The Maples in sharing the intelligence that he has offered to this Chamber with fetal alcohol syndrome. I think that we in this Chamber also have to be very cognizant of the fact that there are young women and young mothers out there and possibly some older ones as well that are using this as a form of--for lack of a better word, I guess--enjoyment without giving due consideration to the young children that they are about to give birth to.
It is unfortunate that we are unable to do anything about this in terms of legislation. I think it is a lot with regard to a lot of things that we as legislators tend to do in trying to give the right message to those people who are going to be affected and those people who have no control over really what is going to happen to them. This is a prime example of that. I think it is an unfortunate situation, and the member for The Maples referenced the fact that a lot of the children born from women who have consumed excessive amounts of alcohol or used drugs in a way that will affect their newborn. I think it is unfortunate that society has to bear the brunt of that in many cases, with our police forces and in our jails.
I do not have any percentages of numbers of people who are in institutions because they are victims of FAS, but my guess is from the experience that I have had with that--and it is not a great amount--but the amount of experience that I had in travelling the province on the drug, alcohol and substance abuse task force in 1991. The aspect of that information that was brought about through that suggested that that number was significantly higher than a lot of people would be aware of. I think that we have to be very cognizant of the fact of what it is doing to us and what it is doing to society.
I agree, a few years ago it was suggested by the opposition members that we should simply put on the label of bottles, the alcohol bottles, that people are consuming that this is dangerous to the health of a pregnant woman and that it is going to affect their baby when the time comes to give birth. I think that it is really misleading in many ways, and I think that it would achieve nothing, because for the simple reason, and the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) referenced the fact that 95 percent of the women when they were polled by Angus Reid knew the difficulty it was going to cause. I think it is more than the 5 percent of the women who are pregnant and are about to give birth--it is certainly more than 5 percent that do actually use drugs and alcohol even though they know that. I think it is important for us, and really it is almost impossible for us to take that responsibility as legislators to impose that by any legislation that we could bring forward. I think it boils down to merely a matter of responsibility.
How do we legislate responsibility on individuals? I think this is where we differ from the official opposition in terms of the responsibility and imposing responsibility on individuals. I think it is really something that--although we have compassion for these people and we would like to be able to get them to do the right things, governments cannot be all things to all people who do not want to be helped and who see other ways or other means of dealing with their problems. Usually, in many cases, where those young mothers are daily affecting their babies by consuming excessive amounts of alcohol are doing so because of other problems. They are dealing with another problem. That was one of the things that came out fairly loud and clear on the task force, that until you deal with the initial problem of these young mothers, you are not going to address the fetal alcohol syndrome problem or solve that issue.
It is a bigger thing. We have to deal with this in a holistic manner and to deal with all aspects of it. I certainly support what the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) is proposing with this resolution. I think that all the members here in the Legislature would probably feel the same way, because we do not want to continue to have this go on, and hopefully there is something that we can do. I appreciate this opportunity to put these few words on the record and to support the resolution. Even though I do not support everything that he has given, I certainly support the aspect, the principle of the resolution in the form.
I think it can be improved on. I think that maybe we can give a lot of consideration to a lot of these things, but I think there will be other members on the government side that I am sure will be speaking on this, and we will be able to have an opportunity to share their views on it. I do thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to the rest of the comments from the members of my colleagues in the Legislature. Thank you.
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): I thank the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) for this resolution. We are going to propose a couple of minor amendments in due course. I believe that they are amendments which the member has already agreed to, and I hope all honourable members opposite will also agree to. The business of fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect, FAS and FAE, are well known to those of us who have been involved with children and children's disabilities for a number of years.
They are very difficult to detect in their--particularly in the FAE, the fetal alcohol effect form, because the problems that moderate levels of alcohol intake cause for fetuses are difficult initially to discern, difficult to diagnose. It is because, as the member for The Maples has pointed out in his resolution, there is no safe minimum level of alcohol ingestion during pregnancy. People who may think that they can consume moderately will nevertheless be doing some level of damage. The question is whether it is so subtle as not to be able to be detected initially or whether it is more major.
* (1620)
For that reason, Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), that
1. The letters "FAE" be added wherever the letters "FAS" appear;
That is to amend the resolution to include fetal alcohol effect as well as fetal alcohol syndrome.
2. Further, to add the words "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this government work with the Manitoba Medical Association to develop diagnostic procedures in identifying FAS, FAE."
I have signed the amendment to that effect, Madam Speaker. Do you wish to consider the amendment before I speak further?
Motion presented.
Madam Speaker: The amendment is in order.
Now, I assume the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) is on his feet to speak to the amendment. Traditionally, procedure would dictate that the member speak to his amendment before he proposes it and then relinquish the floor for continuing debate by other members on the amendment.
There is a way around this. I will ask the House if there is leave to deviate from normal procedural. Is there leave to permit the honourable member for Crescentwood to speak to his amendment? [agreed]
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for leave. I would simply say that I think that it is very important that we develop better diagnostic protocols to establish damage, particularly the lesser levels of damage that occur from what is called fetal alcohol effect. It is called that precisely because it is very difficult to determine what the effect is.
I appeal to the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) and welcome him back from his conference with his colleagues and with the federal minister. I appeal to the Minister of Health to join with all of us in supporting this resolution which I think can only be for the benefit of Manitoba's unborn children and its mothers and fathers.
So with those remarks, I will open the floor to others to speak on the amendment, and I thank honourable members for granting me the privilege to speak now.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): The honourable member for Crescentwood has moved an amendment, and I am seeking clarification. The amendment includes the fetal alcohol effect aspect in all places in the resolution, which is something I could agree with. I do not have a copy of the honourable member's amendment in front of me, but I believe his intent is to include certain groups in our consultation process if I understand correctly. So maybe, since the honourable member may still have some time, he may just clarify that for me. Then I would seek, if the honourable member answers in the affirmative, and we find what he says acceptable.
If that amendment were to go forward, would that then move the whole resolution or would I still be in a position to perhaps further improve on the resolution? [interjection] I am seeking another opinion.
Madam Speaker: For clarification procedurally, for the honourable Minister of Health. The honourable Minister of Health I know is seeking guidance from the mover of the amendment, but no vote is required on the amendment prior to the honourable Minister of Health, if he indeed has the floor, in proposing an additional subamendment.
Mr. McCrae: Then might I suggest the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) answer my question, and then I could seek the floor for my purposes.
Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Crescentwood have leave to make clarification? [agreed]
Mr. Sale: I thank the minister. The intention is to include "fetal alcohol effect" wherever the words "fetal alcohol syndrome" are put in initial form in the motion, and the only addition is to ask you in your capacity as minister to work with the medical community to improve on our ability currently to diagnose either fetal alcohol effect or fetal alcohol syndrome. There was no addition of other consultative groups in my intention, Mr. Minister. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. McCrae: In opening my comments on this resolution placed before us by the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), I would like to thank both the honourable member for The Maples as well as the honourable member for Crescentwood for not only his recent explanation of his amendment, but also for the amendment itself which in my view simply assists us in a better understanding of the whole concept of fetal alcohol syndrome and the effects thereof.
Also, it is always in order, I suggest, and supportable that we seek to improve what are already very good working relationships that we have with organizations like the Manitoba Medical Association, although on any given day one could argue that there are always pressures and tensions and little strains and things like that in those sorts of relationships. I maintain, however, that we still have a fairly good working relationship with the Manitoba Medical Association in our dealings. We share work on councils like the Medical Services Council, the Physician Resource Committee and many, many more of our reform committees that the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) refers to from time to time.
I do not see a particular problem with the amendment brought forward by the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) in the sense of attempting to develop diagnostic procedures. The honourable member, as well as the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) and everybody else in this Chamber, is fairly well aware of some of the tragic results of fetal alcohol syndrome in our society, and there are indications that we are going to be seeing more of that than we have, especially if we do not do anything about it. So any suggestion or any resolution that would move us along in that direction should be the subject of support in this place.
* (1630)
I remember some pretty sad stories from my days in the Department of Justice dealing with offenders in the criminal justice system who arrived in front of the judge with the only defence available that perhaps there could be some leniency or there could be some kind of a disposition in the case that would take account of this particular syndrome and the effects thereof whereby somebody could somehow be helped or society could show some understanding for someone who becomes an offender and that one of the contributing factors is fetal alcohol syndrome.
These efforts today, in my view, are supportive of the strategy for health, especially that strategy laid out by Dr. Brian Postl and all of his colleagues in the development of the Child Health Strategy. Fetal alcohol syndrome is something that adults can suffer from, but it is not something that just started when they became adults because they were born with it. This is, some would call it, being dealt a pretty bad hand. Some might call it a pretty unfair situation for anyone to have to deal with for all the days of their life.
Women and children are at high risk, Madam Speaker, for adverse health and social outcomes associated with the use of alcohol and other drugs. Certainly, we know that there are problems associated with the consumption of alcohol but also with drugs taken prenatally and the impact that can have on the fetus and on the future child.
The Manitoba departments of Health, Family Services and Justice are represented on the committee on alcohol and pregnancy, which involves the development of an FAS and FAE resource centre and network, raising awareness through northern consultations and working with representatives of parent groups of FAS- and FAE-affected children. An FAS support program will include direct assistance to the children and their families, as well as training to child care workers and support workers.
The Addictions Foundation of Manitoba and the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission publish and distribute valuable information about alcohol and health that encourages positive lifestyle choices. The AFM provides education and resource materials to health professionals and the general public. Residential and nonresidential treatment programs are provided for women experiencing problems with alcohol and drug abuse, and that includes pregnant women.
We have been pleased recently to establish the Children and Youth Secretariat. This secretariat identifies years zero to five years of age as a priority target group for their work, and this would include strategies for the prevention of FAS/FAE. Manitoba Health distributes resource material promoting healthy lifestyles during pregnancy, including limited use of alcohol, to prenatal educators across Manitoba. Public health agencies in community health clinics throughout the province provide programs directed to populations at highest risk of alcohol and drug use in pregnancy such as Brandon's Special Delivery Club and Mount Carmel Clinic's Perinatal Program. Currently, a section on FAS is included in the Grade 9 family life curriculum. Manitoba Health frequently liaises with the Department of Education on health curricula issues.
As I said when I started, Madam Speaker, I have an amendment to move to the initial resolution, and I leave to your Honour to figure out how best all of this is going to work, the two amendments and the one resolution, but should it all pass, I suggest we have made some progress. Even if it does not, what I have set out are some of the initiatives being taken by the government of Manitoba to deal with FAS/FAE. As I talk about those initiatives, I would never want to imply that all that can be done has been done, or is being done, because as long as someone out there in the future is going to be affected by this then we have not finished our work.
In recognition especially of the contribution this afternoon to the debate by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), I would like to move, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek:
THAT Resolution No. 9 be amended by deleting all the words following the first "WHEREAS" and replacing them with the following:
WHEREAS women and children are at high risk for adverse health and social outcomes associated with the use of alcohol and other drugs; and
WHEREAS the government of Manitoba has promoted policy approaches which focus on illness prevention and healthy lifestyles; and
WHEREAS the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba (AFM) and the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission publish and distribute valuable information about alcohol and health which encourage positive lifestyle choices; and
WHEREAS AFM provides residential and nonresidential treatment programs for women experiencing problems with alcohol and drug abuse, including pregnant women; and
WHEREAS the Children and Youth Secretariat identify zero to five years of age as a priority. This would include strategies for prevention of FAS/FAE, and currently a section on FAS is included in the Grade 9 Family Life curriculum; and
WHEREAS public health agencies and community health clinics throughout the province provide programs directed to populations at highest risk of alcohol and drug use in pregnancy, such as Brandon's Special Delivery Club and Mount Carmel Clinic's Perinatal Program;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the government of Manitoba continue to pursue a multidisciplinary and multisectoral approach to FAS/FAE; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT public awareness and community support for women at greatest risk for alcohol and drug dependency continue to be important components of this approach.
I thank my colleagues and I thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The amendment that the honourable Minister of Health has proposed is not a subamendment, and I thought I made it clear that a subamendment at this point in time was acceptable. A subamendment would mean that the minister would have the opportunity to amend the amendment.
Having said that, what the honourable Minister of Health, which I will now have to declare not in order, has done is moved an amendment to the original resolution, and the only means by which the Minister of Health would be able to ensure, if so granted the floor, got the eye of the Speaker, that his amendment were to be dealt with, would be to deal with the amendment which is currently on the floor and dispose of it.
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, I call for the question.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. We have an amendment on the floor to be dealt with.
Point of Order
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a point of order, yesterday we heard from the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) as to the background, the history and some of the things that we do in private members' hour, the reason for private members' hour, the reason why expressions from members of the House can have an opportunity to be debated.
* (1640)
Madam Speaker, for the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) to call the question at this point certainly flies in the face of all of the principles and all of the reasons behind private members' hour. I know that there are other members who wish to speak to this very significant proposal, and I think to deny them that by virtue of his actions is certainly not anywhere close to the spirit of which private members' hour is intended.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): To the same point of order, I concur with many of the remarks that the government House leader has just made. In fact, a similar event happened this morning for me, and being consistent with what happened this morning, I know that both myself and the member for The Maples would be more than happy to provide leave for any member to be able to add words to the resolution.
Madam Speaker: On the honourable government House leader's point of order, I appreciate his advice, but it really was not a point of order. The member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), indeed, I recognized him to speak to the amendment that was on the floor, which is currently still on the floor. I did not ask the question on the amendment, and it is my understanding that the will of the House is to continue the debate on the amendment. Agreed? [agreed]
* * *
Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): Madam Speaker, maybe eventually I will move to Pembina, I am not sure. It depends. [interjection] I am sure they would.
Madam Speaker, all members of this government are concerned about the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome and its effects on women and children in Manitoba. I guess by discussing this issue here in the Chamber today, we are taking another step in combating this problem. The best away to eliminate fetal alcohol syndrome is by preventing it from occurring. We do that by using the tools that we already have here in Manitoba, by creating a greater awareness of the problem and the ways to prevent it.
We have heard for years about the effects that alcohol, tobacco and drug abuse have on an unborn child and we know that abuse substances places these children at high risk. Madam Speaker, that is why our government has representatives from the departments of Health, Family Services and Justice on the provincial committee on alcohol and pregnancy. That committee is involved in the ongoing development of a resource centre and network to raise awareness about fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects. This organization is also involved in consultations with northern communities.
This committee is also working closely with federal health authorities in areas under their jurisdiction and with the Association for Community Living-Manitoba and the Manitoba Medical Association.
Health Canada, through the Brighter Futures initiative, has provided a grant for $300,000 for three years, January 1994 to January 1997, to this Association for Community Living. This also means bringing together representatives of parents of affected children which is very important in this process because the parents can help establish some of the parameters by which fetal alcohol syndrome can be addressed. They will help us as we work toward a long-term solution, and the advice that they give us is going to be invaluable.
We also understand that you cannot stop somebody from abusing substances that lead to these devastating effects on children and their families. However, by creating a greater awareness and working with those at risk, we can significantly reduce this problem. We are already starting to see the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome coming into our school systems in larger and larger numbers. This has the educators addressed with a very serious problem as to how to cope with these children in the classroom. So it is becoming more and more of an issue in this province.
We must also understand that the syndrome is something that can occur in all elements of society. Through the committee on alcohol and pregnancy and other agencies, we are able to target those risk groups. It is also important that leaders in communities that have a known problem get involved in creating awareness through their community organizations and local health authorities.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
The Addictions Foundation in Manitoba and the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission are both keenly aware of this issue. They have taken steps by publishing information about alcohol and health to ensure people have the necessary information about making positive decisions and choices for their lifestyle. The important thing is to get as much of this information into the hands of those groups that are targeted, as well as those groups in our community that can have an effect working with would-be parents, young mothers and pregnant mothers to ensure that this fetal alcohol syndrome is avoided.
* (1650)
These initiatives also include specialized training for child care workers and support workers to help them better understand and identify those at risk and work on the front line to help reduce the problem. There is a great deal of information available to the public on this issue, and it is a case of trying to get this information and making sure that this information is disseminated out throughout the province.
The Manitoba Liquor Control Commission has regular public awareness campaigns through the use of posters and other materials that caution women on the use of alcohol during pregnancy, and that is as much as one can possibly do, is to make sure that people are aware of the effects of alcohol, to make sure that the warnings are there, to make sure that the information is there so that young women can make this choice. The commission, along with the distillers association of Canada and the Addictions Foundation, has also published informative booklets outlining in detail the effects of alcohol on health.
The question of how liquor will be labelled in the future, which is an area of federal jurisdiction, is also being addressed.
Resources in Manitoba include community programs directed at those in high-risk groups. We are not just talking about alcohol consumption, we are also concerned with sniffing of substances and other drug abuse, fetal alcohol syndrome and the fetal alcohol effects.
Mount Carmel Clinic and Brandon's Special Delivery Club are two institutions that are addressing these issues in direct programs; other public health agencies and community clinics are also involved in working with those in high risk.
On the prevention side, the provincial Department of Education is also actively involved. They work with the Department of Health to include study on fetal alcohol syndrome in the family life curriculum in Grade 9. This is where we are working as a group to try and attack symptoms of fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects.
This is also an issue that should be addressed by Manitoba families that do not see themselves at risk. By openly and honestly informing youth about the seriousness of this issue, they are less likely to find themselves in a high-risk group later in life.
These examples that I have talked about are examples of a sweeping education and prevention program across many sectors of society. We should also be aware that other organizations such as church groups, parent support groups, even recreation groups, can help in this area.
I am sure that all members of this House would agree that prevention is the best medicine. The good news is that this is something that can be prevented. It is certainly not an easy issue to resolve, but we must ensure that we continue to support a multifaceted approach to this problem and hopefully prevent drug- and alcohol-related birth defects in children.
So I ask all members of this House to support the government of Manitoba in its efforts to continue to create a greater public awareness and understanding of this issue. Thank you.
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to address the House on this resolution. The member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) says, kill this resolution. He may have intentions of killing it, but I certainly do not. What I want to do is contribute to the discussion on this resolution, and I believe I have some professional experiences to bring to bear. If members on the other side say I do not have a right to speak, let them stand and say why I do not have a right to speak. Are my comments of any less worth than the members opposite?
I know the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) made some very, very good comments, and I would like to support some of those comments that were made. I know that many years ago I had the privilege of acting on behalf of the director of child welfare in northern Manitoba. In that respect I acted on behalf of the agency of the director who was charged with ensuring that the best interests of the children of Manitoba were met. In that context I had occasion to deal with many cases involving these children. The terrible thing about this was that often the children who were the topic of these court actions had mothers who were no more than children themselves and often in fact victims of the same syndrome. This, unfortunately, is not a new situation.
It is a serious situation, and the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) should be commended for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Often, though, back in those early years, things were not as co-ordinated. That was during the early 1980s. A lot of good intentions were often wasted because the government programs had not yet coalesced and people were not approaching this problem in a multidisciplinary fashion. At that time, in working with the child care workers, they often expressed that need. So I think, bearing in mind the comments of the member for The Maples, it is important that government recognize this very, very important problem, serious problem, that we take steps, not just department by department but in a co-ordinated fashion.
I know that in listening to the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae), the Minister of Health, I am certain that his department will take the comments made by the member for Maples and work together with the member for Maples, and indeed all members, to ensure that we have a multidisciplinary approach in dealing with this.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Just to inform the honourable Minister of Labour, he is speaking to the amendment from the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale). So if the honourable member could speak to the amendment, it would be in order.
Mr. Toews: Thank you for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was getting to the amendment. I was putting the comments of the member for Maples into a context that would then deal with the amendment. I do not want to lessen the significance of the comments of the member for Crescentwood. They are very important, too. That is why I thought I had to lay out that groundwork, in order then to get to the amendment, but I do thank the Deputy Speaker for directing me in that fashion, and I appreciate that direction.
In dealing with the amendment then, I want to make sure that the amendment does not lose sight of the motion put forward by the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski). It is all right to bring these amendments forward and to say this is better or that is better, but one has to question whether the amendment does not detract in some way from the very good points and principles raised. [interjection] There are some comments coming from the official opposition. If they want to stand and make those comments and address a question to me, I would be happy to answer it. I did not catch those comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I will just go on then addressing the amendment. [interjection] The member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) has a comment to make. Maybe he could say it right into the record. I know I am trying to get through my comments here. I realize that time is very short, but if there are these constant interruptions I will never get through my comments in time to bring this matter to a speedy and proper resolution.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have eight minutes remaining.
* (1700)
The hour being 5 p.m., it is now time for the second half of private members' hour. We will be dealing with Resolution 10.
Res. 10--Improved Benefits for Part-Time Employees
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), that
WHEREAS in the last 15 years economic, technological and social influences have created significant changes in the workplace and within the workforce presenting difficulties for both employees and employers; and
WHEREAS almost 20 percent of Manitoba's workforce is employed part time; and
WHEREAS most of the 94,000 part-time workers do not enjoy the same benefits as their co-workers who work full time; and
WHEREAS in today's economy two-income earner families and single-parent families are the rule rather than the exception; and
WHEREAS there is a need to create a better balance between part-time and full-time workers benefits.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba call on the provincial government to consider introducing legislation amending The Employment Standards Act to provide for prorated benefits for part-time employees, including prorated sick leave, pensions, termination rights and vacation.
Motion presented.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is my honour to introduce this resolution for consideration of members of this House. It has been an issue that has been before us for some time. I know it has come before this Chamber in the last session, and it was originally introduced by our Leader, the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer). I think that this resolution is still pertinent today, still timely in that it is an issue that has yet to be dealt with by this provincial government.
This resolution, as the words explain, is intended to provide some fairness or some equity between those that are currently employed in the labour force, between the full-time and the part-time workers of this province.
This resolution, when it was introduced for consideration of the members of the Chamber here, showed the numbers, 94,000 part-time workers. Those numbers I believe have increased, looking at the latest figures that we have available to us, and I believe it is some 97,000. So while the figures of the resolution are somewhat dated, it is still pertinent to the consideration of this resolution.
One of the difficulties that we have had is changes in the lifestyles of the working people of the province in that working people, through the way the economy is structured and the needs of the employers of the province, have been changing. There is a definite shift away from full-time employment towards part-time employment.
If you look at the numbers, as I have here before me, if you take a look at the yearly average, not just the month-to-month, you will get a more accurate picture. In the part-time employment that we have in the province of Manitoba, there were 97,000 part-time employees in this province. Of those, 69,000 were women; 29,000 were men. So you can see that there is a significant difference in the way the workforce of our province is employed through part-time jobs and that it is very obvious that women fill most of the part-time employment opportunities.
Now that, of course, has been something that has been important to members on this side of the House. I know we have had many discussions on it, and I have had the opportunity to talk with people in my own constituency on it going door to door. People are very concerned that there are not benefits which they would be entitled to as part-time employees, similar to what they might find for employees who they might be working side by side with, and that those full-time employees would have those benefits.
What we have seen and what appears to be taking place is that employers, I believe in an effort to keep their costs under control, have used the part-time workers as a way to contain their costs. By that, I mean the employers hire people on a part-time basis. The employers then would not be responsible for benefits for those employees and therefore would keep their costs under control.
By benefits, I will give you an example, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the employers in a lot of cases where you would find benefits for full-time employees such as sick time, dental plan, ambulance, semiprivate hospital, parental leave, pensions, vacation that might accrue to someone who is working on a full-time basis that if they had been there for an extended period of time that vacation would increase the longer they would spend with that employer.
It is my perception, and I am sure that the people of my community that I talk to feel the same way, because they have related these issues to me, that we need to take some steps to restore a sense of fairness or a sense of balance. I know members opposite in their own families may have children who are in the workforce and maybe the children are working at part-time jobs.
I know from going door to door that there is a sense of despair among some people who are unable to find employment other than part-time work, but if we had in place some provisions that would restore the sense of balance or sense of fairness, that people working part time would have entitlement to certain benefits that other full-time employees in the same operation would have, then the people would sense that they were being treated fairly.
This is not occurring to this point in time, and I think that it is something that needs to be dealt with; it is past due. There is an opportunity for the Employment Standards branch in this province to take the necessary steps, but I believe that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) can deal with that, and there is a way that I would suggest to the Minister of Labour.
I know when we had the opportunity to go through the Estimates debates for his department just this past June, the minister referenced several areas that he thought would require some revision or some changes within his department, the various functions, and I might suggest to the minister that perhaps he could assign to the Labour Management Review commission the task of investigating, consulting the various stakeholders of the province including the employers and the working people of the province and come back with some concrete proposals where we could implement a plan that would include benefits for part-time workers.
I believe the Government of Saskatchewan in 1994, I think it was March of 1994, came forward with their proposal to prorate benefits for part-time workers. Now, it had some discussion in the province. I know the employers were upset, and I believe the Canadian Federation of Independent Business for one took issue with the changes the government was proposing at that time, but if you look at the employment levels in the province of Saskatchewan, they are leading the country in employment. Their unemployment levels are very, very low. They were for a long time the lowest unemployment in the country and therefore the highest employment, and yet--[interjection] No, the people are not leaving there, they are not leaving Saskatchewan like you might see here.
I just need to reference the fact that I see in my own community over the last two or three years signs "leaving the province, unable to find work." Garage sale signs on the corners of the main streets in my community, to me, give a pretty good indication of the perception of the public. [interjection] No, I am not taking it personally, but I am saying, that is the perception of the people of my community of their opportunities, their employment opportunities in this province.
* (1710)
Now, that is something that I witness as I drive around the various communities, and I relate that to members of the House so that they too might be aware that people are leaving Manitoba because the employment opportunities are not here. What I am suggesting here is that, because the number of people working part time is increasing, that number is growing, and I believe it is in part due to the fact that there are certain requirements or need on the part of employers to contain costs. Employers are taking advantage of the provision that there are no prorated benefits for part-time workers and if we were to have such a provision, such a piece of legislation in this province, it would encourage full-time employment in Manitoba.
Full-time workers, I am sure we all know, are able to buy more, purchase more goods and services obviously because they have more income and therefore hopefully more disposable income. If we have people who are working at full-time jobs, and I know I have encountered people in my own community, residents of the community and friends and others who are employed in several part-time jobs and only have to do this because they cannot find full-time employment. To pay the bills that they have, they have to take on several part-time jobs. The benefits are not there for them.
They do not have the ability to have the quality of family life that we all want, most of us have for ourselves and our families because fortunately for us in this Chamber here today we are employed full time, but for the people that are working part time there is not--[interjection] Full time plus, perhaps I should say, in a lot of cases. Term employment. There is not that opportunity to have the quality of family life that many people would have.
If you have one partner in the home that is working in a part-time job and has certain hours and the other partner has to go and work at another part-time job at different hours, now if there are children, that might be okay to look after the children, but it does not contribute to the overall quality of family life. So we need to have in place legislation similar to what they have, I believe, in the province of Saskatchewan which would allow for the prorated benefits for those workers. I know that we have had the opportunity, myself personally as well, to talk with some supporters of the members opposite and even they too would like to see some change to that. Maybe the members opposite have had the opportunity to talk with members of their own constituency and maybe even some of their own supporters that maybe have lobbied government members to bring in such a change.
What we need to do is bring back the principle of fairness and to ensure that we create more full-time jobs. The only way to do it that I can see this taking place is to bring into place a provision that would allow for the prorated benefits. I think it would contribute greatly to the quality of family life in the province and at the same time would create increased economic activity.
I will give you an example of what is taking place in my own community, and I had the chance to raise it here today in Question Period. The railworkers of the Transcona CN Shops operations that have been laid off and those that have been laid off before this announcement yesterday are now finding themselves in the unenviable position of having to find work. Members opposite would say that work is readily available. I am not so sure of that judging from the comments that I have heard from the unemployed in my community. There are part-time opportunities available, but that will not sustain the families because quite often those jobs are relatively low paying in consideration to what they had been making previously as a skilled tradesperson. These people then are unable to buy the homes, they are unable to buy the cars, they are unable to do the normal activities, buy the durable goods they might like to do or might expect to do as part of normal daily living. That in turn has a snowball effect and goes down and creates impacts further down the other employment sectors, the other sectors of the economy. Because people are less able to buy or make those purchases, it has impact all the way down the line.
So creating the opportunities for people to receive benefits would give the encouragement for the employer. Because there are no incentives then to hire part-time people because they still have to pay the pro-rated benefits, it would encourage more employers, I believe, to hire people on a full-time basis and, therefore, give people a vision or a hope for the future that they have an income that is there for them to spend as disposable income. That would spin off in the economy and create more economic opportunity in other sectors of the economy.
So I think it is important that the government take the necessary steps, and, as I have suggested to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), perhaps he can refer this matter to the Labour Management Review commission for further consideration and to report back within a fixed period of time, perhaps the end of the year or early into the new year, with some recommendations on how we could implement such a proposal. I believe it will be to the benefit of all the working people in the province of Manitoba and will help to stimulate the economy of Manitoba as well.
With those words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to raise this resolution.
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Mr. Deputy Speaker, again it is my privilege to address the House in respect to this resolution. I, however, cannot support the resolution. I will, of course, explain my reasons why I cannot support this resolution.
First of all, though, I would like to indicate that I know I have been referred to by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) as the member from Great-West Life. Now, if I truly was only representing Great-West Life in this House, I may in fact consider supporting that kind of resolution, but I understand my duty to be much broader, to the citizens of Manitoba as a whole rather than one corporate entity.
This particular resolution has also been considered in two provinces, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. As for the suggestion that we bring this to a committee to study it thoroughly, perhaps members opposite should consider the Thompson report out of British Columbia, where their sister or brother party in that province authorized that task force and to come back with a report. What indeed did the government do with the recommendations at that time? Well, there was a recommendation made by the Thompson report for benefits for part-time workers, and, in a news release, the Minister of Labour, Mr. Dan Miller, in British Columbia, indicated that they had considered the report in detail. They had looked at all of the issues. There was a report entitled Rights and Responsibilities in a Changing Workplace, and it was delivered after extensive consultations with members of the business community, members of trade unions, members of the public, and what did the Minister of Labour of the NDP government in British Columbia say in response to Mr. Thompson's report, who was a UBC professor, a very learned man? He said, the changes that they will implement, however, in spite of the Thompson report, are measured and careful and the product of thorough discussions with B.C.'s business community and workers.
He said, we have discarded those recommendations that we felt were unworkable or unfair, and we will follow through on only those that are both fair and practical. We will continue to listen to both employers and employees as the government proceeds with implementation.
* (1720
What recommendations, then, did the NDP government in British Columbia follow through on? Well, what they did not proceed with was benefits for part-time workers? Essentially, they said, why did the government there decide not to introduce fringe benefits, they responded? It raised a lot of questions about how this would work. Quite frankly, it was unworkable.
In a news release, Miller said, the government has attempted to present a package that balances the interest of business and workers following discussions with both groups. The government will not proceed with some of the recommendations from the report, including extension of benefits to part-time workers simply because they were unworkable.
Now, the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) says, well, let us take a look at the Saskatchewan experience. We should go there because, in fact, they implemented this provision to create benefits for part-time workers. Well, again, let us take a look at what they did in Saskatchewan. It is true that the NDP government in Saskatchewan enacted legislation giving benefits to part-time workers. Not only did business hate it, but others in the community hated it. In fact, what the government did in response to many, many criticisms of that bill was water it down, so that the legislation now, the legislation in Saskatchewan that members opposite champion, affects approximately 7 to 10 percent of part-time workers. They knew they had a political problem on their hands. They knew the legislation was unworkable, and they reduced the application of that legislation to a very small minority of their workers.
So the experiment in Saskatchewan has failed, although one must commend them on their desire to at least follow through on what they had promised they would do. In practice, it does not affect part-time workers and in respect of the administration of that bill, again it is unworkable. It does not work.
In fact, the resolution that the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) is bringing forward today is essentially the same resolution that was brought forward a year ago. And again, there was nothing that justified the adoption of such a resolution in this House at that time, and there is nothing that justifies it now.
The job, I think, of this House is to ensure that we bring things for consideration that have some measure or some ability to succeed. This clearly has none. Not even the two governments in British Columbia and Saskatchewan were able to make that type of legislation work.
What this in fact does is goes back to the type of philosophy that says let us create jobs by legislation, let us create an economy by legislation, let us regulate things and create jobs.
We know that that is not the way to secure employment. That is not the way to create more jobs here, to create better jobs here. The union negotiators who used to come and say, after tremendous bargaining in good faith on their part, would have to go back to the employees that they represented and say, well, I have got some good news and I have got some bad news. The good news is that you have got benefits for part-time workers. The bad news is that your jobs are gone. Well, that is not the kind of government we want.
In speaking with union leaders and in speaking with employees, I find in this province a pragmatism by these people, unfortunately, a pragmatism that members opposite, specifically the New Democratic Party, has not yet caught on to.
I would prefer to see, if benefits for part-time workers are workable, let us do it through the collective bargaining process. Let us let the unions certify groups of employees and bargain on their behalf. Let us not take jobs away from the unions.
I know that the statistics here in this province are that, of two-thirds of the collective agreements in this province, two thirds of those agreements give benefits to part-time workers. What does that say to you? In a third, it does not. Why? Because the negotiators have learned it does not work there. Why should the heavy hand of government come in and--
An Honourable Member: And protect the dignity of workers. That is right.
Mr. Toews: Yes. As the member for Osborne says, why should government protect the dignity of workers? I can tell you why government should protect the dignity of workers--because that is our job. And if he has any questions about protecting the dignity of workers, he should understand that resolution in its entirety, and I was going to explain that to him but he keeps on interrupting.
An Honourable Member: Crescentwood, by the way.
Mr. Toews: Crescentwood, I am sorry. It is the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) who keeps on interrupting.
So there are opportunities in the collective bargaining field to get these types of benefits into collective agreements, and that is where it should be done. I took heart this morning when I looked at the newspaper, the Winnipeg Sun. I will tell you how to create security for workers in this province. I will tell you how to create benefits for workers. The answer is to elect a Conservative government, and this the people of Manitoba have done three times successively.
As a result of that, the Winnipeg Sun says, "Exports drive growth in jobs." There is a glowing article. [interjection] Well, I do not have all the expertise like my learned friend from Crescentwood. I sometimes have to rely on other people's advice. What the Winnipeg Sun is saying is that Manitoba is booming in terms of jobs. It says: "It doesn't take a mathematician to figure it out--it's a simple enough equation"--simple enough for the member for Osborne. [interjection] Crescentwood, I am sorry.
Statistics Canada figures for the first six months of '95 reveal Manitoba increased its U.S. exports by 26.8 percent. We are sustaining growth in this province. We are sustaining jobs, and that is the way we create benefits for part-time workers. That is how we turn part-time jobs into full-time jobs, and that is how we get benefits. That gives our young people hope that there is future in this province, that they stay in this province. I can only echo the comments made by some of the members on this side, jobs and growth. That is what we have to talk about.
* (1730)
Let us move away from this idea that regulation is going to create jobs. Let us move away that it will create security. If we regulate, that will create security. In this global economy, we have to be very, very sensitive. Jobs can disappear overnight in a changing economy, in the globalization of investment, in the globalization of trade. Those are the things we have to be concerned about. If we build up regulatory walls in this province, we shut ourselves in.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to support my colleague from Transcona and speak in favour of this resolution. I believe that part-time workers should be entitled to the same kinds of benefits that full-time workers are entitled to. In fact, I think there is a considerable amount of evidence that companies hire part-time workers for the very reason that they do not have to pay them the kind of benefits or that the company does not have the associated costs that they have with full-time benefits, and that is true of many retail businesses.
In fact, if you were to examine who works in the service sector, you would see that the service sector is vastly overrepresented by women who are therefore in lower-paying jobs, frequently nonunionized jobs and frequently part-time jobs which do not have the same kind of protection and the same kind of benefits that full-time employees have. So I think it is a matter of fairness not only to women but to all employees that companies be required to extend benefits to part-time workers.
In fact,I have recently has some casework which I am still working on and intend to follow up on whereby an individual because they were a contract employee had no protection of the law. I think this is an area that we have not looked at very much, but we probably should because in this particular instance the individual complained to their employer, which happens to be a publicly owned corporation, of sexual harassment. The result of that was that she was no longer called in to work. There was nothing illegal about that because, as a contract employee who was on call, the employer had no obligation to call her in to work. In effect, this individual was dismissed from her job for complaining about sexual harassment, and I find that really offensive and I intend to keep pursuing it. I will be pursuing it on her behalf with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission. I have already talked to staff in the Department of Labour, and, if necessary, I am going to talk to the general manager of the public corporation and see if we cannot do something about it.
But I just use it in this debate as an example of what happens when a part-time employee has no protection, even protection I presume of labour laws that other people would be entitled to by virtue of the fact that she was an on-call employee. She is very upset and justifiably so, and I have heard that other employees are being subjected to sexual harassment from the same individual who is still there, and I am going to collaborate their stories and send that information to the Human Rights Commission. I also discovered to my surprise that I could not phone up and talk to the investigator. It is not allowed, so I have to write to the executive director and hope that the executive director will put it in the file and that my comments and my suggestions on how to follow up will be taken into consideration.
There are other examples that I could use of employees who do not benefit from company benefits because of either company rules or loopholes in the law. For example, when my wife was employed by Simpson's in Toronto a number of years ago, she joined the company pension plan and she made contributions on every pay cheque and so did the company, but they had a provision that you had to be in the pension plan for five years or it was not locked in. The result was that she left the employment after three years. Her contributions were returned to her but without interest, which means that the company had the use of her money for three years and could do whatever they wanted with the interest. That may not seem very significant for one employee, but if it were thousands of employees who may have worked anywhere from a matter of weeks up to the maximum of five years, it could have been a considerable amount of interest. So I think that is another example of where employees are not covered by pensions.
Now I would like to continue talking about pensions because many employees do not have pensions and this causes a problem when they retire. In fact, I have talked to individuals and constituents who have been employed--I remember one case. An individual was employed for 40 years and happened to work either part time or for hospitals or other organizations that at that time had no company pension plan. The result was that when this person retired, they were basically living in poverty, they were being supplemented by the federal Guaranteed Income Supplement.
(Mr. Mike Radcliffe, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
I think that this is one of the undesirable outcomes of the current practice of not extending benefits to part-time employees is that when they do retire, if they do not have sufficient income, they become dependent on government transfers, notably the Guaranteed Income Supplement or, in Manitoba, the 55 Plus supplement.
Now we do know that the one group in Canadian society who have fewer or a lesser percentage of poor people are seniors, that the only category of Canadians where there has been a declining rate of poverty in the last 25 years is amongst seniors. There are some very definite reasons for that. One is that more companies do have pension plans. Another reason is that more women are in the paid workforce. The result is that these employees are retiring either with savings or with company pensions or Canada Pension or even all three, and so that is a good thing.
Now many people today are opting for RRSPs. All of us here are familiar with that because we no longer have a pension plan. In fact, some of us are quite happy to tell voters that because they assume that we are like federal members of Parliament and have quite a generous pension plan. So it is a pleasure to be able to tell our voters, no, we have no more pension plan, we have an RRSP and one of the main differences is that it is a totally funded RRSP as opposed to an unfunded pension plan. [interjection]
We could probably debate this but not on the record. Besides, the debate is in the past, and we all voted for the changes, I think I recall.
So it is good to encourage people to save. Of course, the saving here is encouraged by the tax system whereby RRSP monies are tax sheltered. So it is a very good way to save because if you can afford to put the money in the RRSP in the first place, you save money on your taxes. It is good for government and for everyone to encourage people to save for their retirement. The problem is that if you have an emergency, you are going to dip into your RRSP to tide you over for that emergency. It could be almost anything, including things that may not truly be an emergency. It might be your children's education. You thought you could afford to pay for their education and then you find that you cannot, and so the parents help out their son or daughter or sons and daughters by using RRSP money for their education.
* (1740)
Another example would be if you lose your job. You may qualify for UI--but then again you may not--and if you do exhaust your unemployment insurance and want to apply for social assistance, you have a very serious problem. Probably there are a lot of people in society who are not aware of this unless they are forced to apply for social assistance themselves, and that is that you have to exhaust all your savings down to a minimum of $400, which is your liquid asset exemption, before you can go on social assistance. So you could have a $100,000 in an RRSP and you would have to spend all of it except $400 before you applied for social assistance. It would not matter how much money was in your RRSP. I just use that by way of example. You could have $20,000. You could have $10,000 in an RRSP. You would have to exhaust all of it except for $400 before you could apply for social assistance.
Not only that, but the rules are very strict, not just about RRSPs, but if you received a lump sum payment from Autopac or a life insurance payment or an inheritance from an estate, not only would social assistance require you to use it, to spend it, before you apply for social assistance, but they also will calculate how long it should have lasted you. So they might say, well, you had $100,000 in your RRSP--and you might have spent it at the rate of $40,000 a year in order to keep up an average standard of living, but they will say, no, you should make it last the same length of time according to how much money we would give you. So if they are going to give you $6,000 a year, they can say to you, you have to make that money last 12 years, because that is the amount of money we would give you to live on in a year. So you have a very serious predicament if you ever lose your job and your unemployment insurance benefits and you do not have a second income in the family and you have an RRSP or any other kinds of savings or Savings Bonds, any other kind of liquid asset, if you apply for social assistance.
So even though RRSPs are a good form of saving, and they are tax sheltered and they are very popular, that is one serious disadvantage. People dip into them for emergencies. In fact, Stats Canada publishes information about the rates at which people not only contribute to RRSPs but the rate at which people withdraw money from RRSPs, and every year there are many Canadians who withdraw money from RRSPs, and, of course, usually at the lower income bracket.
So there is a huge advantage to having a company pension or a government pension or an employer-employee pension plan. That is that it is a kind of enforced savings.
Most of us, human nature being what it is, need some kind of incentive. I think probably if you look at the effect of RRSPs, because there is an incentive, people take advantage of that and salt away money for their retirement, but pension plans are much better in that the money is locked in and you cannot get it out until you retire. That is why, you know, I recommend that part-time employees have the same kind of benefits, particularly pension benefits, that full-time people are entitled to.
I would like to talk briefly about sick leave and vacation. I think it is only fair that part-time employees be entitled to the same kind of sick leave benefits that others are. There is no reason why it cannot be prorated depending on the number of hours a week that people work. The same with vacation. I think that is another benefit that people should have even if they are part-time employees. In fact, Canadians take far less holidays, and so do Americans, than almost any country in the world.
If you travel to other countries, if you travel to Europe or elsewhere and you run into people as my wife and I did in Europe and we started comparing holidays, and we ran into people from Australia and elsewhere, we discovered that their average length of vacations is five or six weeks. Then you tell them, well, in Canada we start with two weeks and you have to build up from there, but there are a lot of people who only get two or three weeks holidays a year, and they are very surprised, because other countries have much, much more generous provisions for vacation.
I think that is all I am going to say, Mr. Acting Speaker. I concentrated on pensions, but also termination rights, because I used an example of someone who really had no rights when it came to termination. Hopefully this Legislature will approve and pass this very good resolution.
Mr. David Newman (Riel): Mr. Acting Speaker, it is my privilege to now rise to join issue with the proponents of this resolution and urge it to be abandoned or defeated.
You know, employment standards legislation has rarely been amended in this province. Certainly during my 26 years of labour practice it has been rare. There has been some piecemeal, as-needed approaches--some--which have been generally accepted in our workplaces by owners, managers, unions, employees, customers and creditors. It must be appreciated by all of us in this House, I submit, that in Manitoba we have, metaphorically speaking, an ecosystem of employment. It is submitted that one cannot disturb that delicate system, which works well if appropriately nurtured and encouraged, unless demonstrably necessary.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
So often, we are driven from the other side of the House, it seems, by doctrinaire or emotionally-driven, motivated, unilateral, mandatory interferences in this area of labour and employment law. Even if it is well meaning, it is submitted that often it does far more harm than good. This is such a resolution that is submitted.
Witness the aerosol spray deodorants. Witness the hair sprays which keep hair down. Witness DDT which kills flies in our homes and our cottages, or used to. Witness asbestos and what it was intended for, to provide insulation, and what happened. All of these apparently good ideas we can all agree have done far more harm than good, jeopardizing our essential-for-life ozone layer, contributing to brain damage, causing cancer. Impact studies must therefore be done and must be conducted before these doctrinaire or emotionally-driven suggestions. These kinds of ideas should be treated seriously by this Assembly.
In fairness to the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), in the carefully chosen words of this resolution, he has, it appears, simply invited our government to consider this idea. As an MLA speaking absolutely independently for myself and on behalf of the constituency, I can assure you I have considered this idea, and on the basis of my knowledge and experience and on the basis of readily available views of various factors in the community, I reject it.
The factions and the communities that have spoken on this issue have been from other jurisdictions who have had this sort of resolution put in the form of bills and suggested changes to legislation and have been commented on, the coalition of B.C. business, CFIB. The Manitoba Chamber of Commerce has commented on the resolution that was brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) last time, a year ago. There have been general comments, there have been comments from the restaurant industry, Westfair and, I might say, even the co-operative movement. The sorts of comments are all negative.
From B.C., the comment that comes from a coalition of middle and small businesses is to the effect that it could cause a dramatic slowdown in the hiring of people and, in some cases, create actual job loss. It indicated the proposal could also lead to trade-offs elsewhere, such as lower levels of coverage for full-time employees in areas such as disability or dental insurance.
* (1750)
CFIB noted it would harm job creation efforts in Canadian jurisdictions. The general comments included that the result will be downsizing, that the arbitrary threshold is hurtful. There will be artificial company splits or greater shifting from employee to contractor status.
Restaurateurs have said, we believe this kind of legislation will result in less benefits for full-time employees and fewer jobs for part-time workers. Most part-time employees would prefer to have their money now. Rather than life insurance or pension benefits in the future, they would rather have it now.
We have the food industry, in this case, Westfair, saying in Saskatchewan, the grocery store chain was considering spending $10 million upgrading O K Economy stores in Saskatchewan but is reviewing the decision because of labour problems with its union and new provincial labour laws.
Co-operatives, one of them in Saskatchewan made the strongest statement of all, and that is in relation to the legislation, and this is in November of 1994. Using the number of employees as a criterion as to whether or not an employer must apply standards is discriminating and puts organizations like co-operatives, due to their diversified nature, at a distinct competitive disadvantage in nearly every small community in Saskatchewan. Imposing employers that currently provide benefits to full-time workers, to also provide them to part-time workers discriminates against those employers that have provided benefits in the past, and against workers of those that have not given benefits in the past and will likely not offer in the future.
Dictating how business owners, managers, schedule staff goes beyond the boundaries of what labour legislation should entail. In a democratic society, workers are entitled to be protected against suppression; however, this type of legislation goes far beyond that. If we have the basic right to control our own businesses taken away from us, failure will soon follow.
This bad idea in Saskatchewan was ultimately diluted to such an extent that only 7 percent of part-time workers were affected by it. As the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) indicated, in B.C. the proposed legislation never even surfaced, and it was defeated. It was defeated very early, and they did not proceed with it beyond the bill stage.
In Saskatchewan, what they did was to dilute it to such an extent that only 7 percent of the part-time employees were affected by it. This was done by arbitrarily drawing a line in the middle of small businesses, ensuring a lack of competitiveness and avoidance techniques which would detract time and resources from meaningful work.
Is it not probable that this failure to withdraw this bad idea was a unconvincing exercise in face saving? Having concluded that this recycled bad idea for Manitobans is unworthy of further consideration, I am tempted to stop here, but resist that temptation in case someone in this Assembly may still not agree with this view, that is, that the resolution should not be considered further. It is clearly on the record that the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) and his predecessor, the honourable Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik), agree with this view. I would be surprised if the honourable members of the Liberal Party disagreed with this view.
I would be delighted if honourable members from the official opposition would show the independence of conviction and thought that the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) eloquently and convincingly encouraged yesterday during the private members' time in this House and allow this resolution to be put to a vote and defeated now. I am getting the clear message that there is no opposition to this view. Silence means consent, so I move on in any event.
A provision of this resolution, if we move beyond consideration, is the last preamble, where it says, whereas there is a need to create a better balance between part-time and full-time employees. Now, a need to create a better balance between part-time and full-time workers--do 80 percent of the workers in Manitoba need this imposed balance? That is the full-time employees cited in the resolution. That is the statistic. Do they want this balance? Not likely. The coalition of B.C. business said that the proposal could lead to trade-offs elsewhere, such as lower levels of coverage for full-time employees in areas such as disability or dental insurance.
Do owners and entrepreneurs want this balance? Not when it will hurt job creation efforts as claimed by CFIB, B.C. coalition of business, the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce and other organizations I have referred to. Do creditors want this balance? Not when it hurts entrepreneurship. Do managers want this balance? Not when it means unnecessary and difficult and costly administration and overrides existing negotiated collective agreements and employment contracts and costs of doing business and carefully constructed compensation and benefit plans in the workplaces. Do customers want this balance? Not when it increases prices of goods or services.
Do unions want this balance? Unions have the freedom to negotiate this change, and if they want to, the freedom to organize part-time employees who are unhappy with existing benefits for part-time employees. Would this stop them from negotiating for other minority groups? I mean, the union movement has taken on causes for minority groups before. If this is an important cause, take it on. If the union movement in Manitoba were to support this kind of resolution, it would evidence that the spokespeople for that movement continue their practice too often, too often in too many cases during the last 26 years, of going to the government to impose universal standards on all workplaces with the misguided view that this will help employees.
I believe the union movement, through its new leadership, is now rejecting this kind of notion, and it is desirous of supporting entrepreneurship, job creation and mutual-interest bargaining. Therefore, it would want me as an honourable member of this Assembly to oppose this resolution. I do so.
That leaves me with part-time employees, and if we have the same reliance on the stat in the resolution, we are talking about 20 percent of the employees. Do they want balance with full-time employees? By the way, I mean, if as in Saskatchewan only 7 percent of the part-time employees in Manitoba are covered by this resolution in a watered-down, save-face method, this is equal to 1.4 percent of the employees in the province. If there are 94,000 part-time employees, this means 1,316 employees. On sheer numbers alone, is it worth going through this exercise with a bad idea, simply to save face?
Assuming that the resolution still were to proceed, would part-time employees in Manitoba want balance with full-time employees if it meant, and I submit it does, full-time employees got less benefits. Many part-time employees aspire to be full-time employees, as was pointed out by the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). They aspire to be full-time employees, and in the normal course if they aspire to that status and work for it and pay their dues to get there, they often achieve it. Would part-time employees in Manitoba want balance with full-time employees if it meant less job opportunities, less chances for advancement? I think not.
Therefore, after consideration and analysis of this resolution, it is submitted respectfully that it should not be considered further. It is not needed or wanted by any of the affected groups when adequately informed as to its implications.
Just a few rebuttal comments. My honourable friend from Burrows raised some points about pensions that really are not covered by this resolution. As we know, The Pension Benefits Act is far different from the days and the jurisdiction of Ontario; there is far more protective legislation in the interests of part-time employees in Manitoba than there was in Ontario at that time.
With respect to the observation that there is some justification given that this should be a tactic to discourage the hiring of part-time employees, I submit there are far better ways to use one's time and energy than to take the time of this House to suggest such a devious tactic to achieve that objective which is unworthy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. The resolution will remain open.
Order, please. The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).