PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS--PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 201--The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), Bill 201, The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-maladie, standing in the name of the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine). Stand?
Is there leave for this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 204--The Child and Family Services Amendment Act (2)
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), Bill 204, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act (2); Loi no. 2 modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfant et à la famille, standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau). Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
SECOND READINGS--PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 205--The Health Care Records Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion on second readings, public bills, Bill 205, The Health Care Records Act; Loi sur les dossiers médicaux, is the honourable member going to be coming forward? Not at this time.
Bill 208--The Elections Amendment Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion, 208, The Elections Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi électorale, is the honourable member bringing it forward at this time? Not now.
Bill 211--The Limitation of Actions Amendment Act
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), that Bill 211, The Limitation of Actions Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la prescription, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
(Madam Speaker in the Chair)
Motion presented.
Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to open debate on The Limitation of Actions Amendment Act which hopes to correct a situation in which victims of sexual assault have frequently found themselves. I refer to those instances where, because of the limitations of actions, victims of assault are unable to seek redressment in civil court for the criminal acts committed against them.
I want to add at this point that though women and girls are most frequently the victims of these types of assault, and therefore changes in legislation would most benefit them, men and boys too have suffered physical and sexual assault in relationships of trust and dependency. We need only to think of Mount Cashel and the shameful records of many of our residential schools. Men and boys will benefit from the proposals in this bill.
Bill 211 amends the current Limitation of Actions Act by removing barriers to civil suits by victims of assault or sexual assault where the assault or sexual assaults took place in a relationship of trust and dependence, for example, when a parent, a guardian or a physician was the perpetrator. In instances of sexual assault the bill removes all time limitations governing civil suits. In other instances of assault, for example, domestic assault, the limitation period is set at 30 years.
Madam Speaker, I want to tell the House that this bill is based on legislation currently in place in Ontario. The Supreme Court of Canada has specifically cited Ontario's legislation and commended its thoroughness and its excellence. This seems to me a high recommendation. The bill recognizes those cases of childhood sexual assault where individuals for many years and for a raft of reasons are simply incapable of commencing civil proceedings against their perpetrators. All of us in this House, whether through the media, professional or personal experience or through constituency work are familiar with cases like these. I suppose the most famous recent example of belated public disclosure was that made by the surviving Dionne quintuplets, who were not able to break their silence until they were in their 60s. If these women lived in Manitoba and if their perpetrator still lived the old Limitation of Actions Act would not allow them to pursue civil action.
This amendment would change the current statute and enshrine the removal of barriers in a provincial statute. Women like the Dionnes then could pursue civil action if they so chose.
Those women's groups, professional therapists and counsellors and individuals, both men and women, with whom I have consulted in regard to this bill welcome its intent. They view it as a step in the direction of justice for the victims of crimes. I think too that given the fairly recent recognition of cases involving childhood sexual abuse, especially those cases where abuse is brought to light after years of lost memory or after years of denial, this bill is timely and I of course recommend it to the House.
Perhaps the best known Canadian cases of individuals who as adults recovered their memories of childhood sexual abuse are Sylvia Fraser, Elly Danica and Shirley Turcotte. [phonetic] Fraser and Danica in their respective books, My Father's House and Don't, and Shirley Turcotte [phonetic] in her movie, A Scream from Silence, have documented their abuse and their healing.
All of these women believe they saved their lives by recovering their memories and objectifying their experiences in art. These women did not proceed with civil actions, but I mention them as artists with international reputations and therefore as extremely credible women, certainly strong argument against the false memory syndrome and excellent examples of the importance of redress and action in healing from sexual abuse.
This bill is timely too in view of the advent of false memory syndrome advocates. The argument of these advocates is basically that therapists eager to cash in on their clients or obtain cannon fodder for research projects plant the seeds of sexual assault in the minds of their clients who then in turn dutifully report childhood sexual abuse.
The false memory argument is as old as Freud. As a young practitioner Freud was staggered by the incredible numbers of women reporting sexual abuse. He first accepted their stories and later, in the face of skeletons in his own family closet, amended his diagnosis and developed his theory of the Electra complex. Women, so the theory goes, desire sexual relationship with their fathers or with father figures and therefore fantasize these very encounters.
Madam Speaker, Freud was brilliant, but the Electra complex is not an example of his brilliance. Nonetheless, false memory advocates have seized on Freud to champion their cause, to argue that men and women with the conniving of either ruthless or inept therapists have imagined what they reported as sexual assault.
Indeed, the truth may well be that false memory advocates themselves are perpetrators. We know that many perpetrators who vociferously deny their actions are in very prestigious positions and sometimes in powerful public positions in public institutions.
* (1610)
Again, one thinks of residential schools, the years of abuse and torture inflicted on children, mostly aboriginal children. I note the perpetrators in these cases were not quick to acknowledge culpability, and that initially there was great denial and public resistance. As a society, we do not like to see the undesirable underside of our society held up to public scrutiny.
At this point, I want to say the research project entitled Women's Voices Shall Be Heard, Report on the Sexual Abuse of Women by Mental Health Service Providers, this report was prepared in 1993, by the Canadian Mental Health Association. This is neither the time nor the place to examine the report, but I want to make a couple of quick points: (1) both men and women participated in the study; (2) when confronted, perpetrators invariably denied their actions; (3) recovering from assault is a lengthy and difficult process; and (4) in relation to the advocates of false memory syndrome, perpetrators nearly always deny their crimes.
My question is just why would individuals invent the dreadful instances of sexual abuse that are brought before the courts? There is simply no reason why this would happen.
I want to say that Manitoba courts measure the period of limitation from the time that the plaintiff knows or ought reasonably be expected to know the material facts of a claim. Furthermore, the courts have been relatively liberal in interpreting the expression "ought reasonably to be expected to know." The limitation period for civil action is two years from this time.
The question then becomes, Madam Speaker, why, if the courts are so generous in applying the limitation of actions, is it advisable to extend the time for initiating action in cases of sexual assault involving trust or dependency to drop all limits, and in cases of assault involving trust or dependency to extend the limitation of actions to 30 years?
These are complex and sensitive matters. In many cases, assailants use their powers over victims to draw a curtain of secrecy around the crime and to impose a tremendous burden of guilt on the victims. Only with the passage of time and perhaps therapy is a victim in a position to take legal action. In other cases, and this is particularly true of incest, the victim may suffer memory loss, and regaining memory may take years. My research and consultations with experts suggest that, when an individual first becomes conscious of the abuse, he or she experiences a good deal of personal trauma and even enters crisis. In fact, the first two years of conscious knowledge may well be the time when an individual is least able to take action. This is often a time of paralysis, confusion, bitterness and emotional volatility. It is a time for healing and not really a time for initiating actions.
The current limitation means that during these two years the pressure to initiate action can put an individual and a therapist under tremendous pressure, pushing them both to speed up the process which requires time. Not only does this interfere with healing but as well makes it more difficult for an individual to reclaim all the memory and the totality of experience. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, victims of abuse often look to the justice system as a means of validating their credibility and assisting in their healing. When the victim, because of the pressures of time, experiences the court as adversarial, that individual is not vindicated and, indeed, may feel revictimized and deprived of justice.
Extending the limitation of actions would create a climate where the justice system did not throw blocks in the way. The current situation, as mental health care practitioners know, discourages most people from initiating civil suits; therefore, it discourages justice and redressment. Extending the limitations of actions would enshrine in statute the rights of victims. I want to add here that as a society I think we are only just beginning to become aware of the terrible way in which we have violated and ignored victims, and we need to change this.
As I near the end of my debate, I think it is important to point out that in some cases civil suits are absolutely part of the healing. This is especially true for those individuals who have been most damaged, who have been left with little sense of self, and who desperately need validation from the outside. As well, for victims of childhood sexual abuse, it is important to note that they have almost invariably been hurt by figures of authority, by fathers, grandfathers, physicians. Therefore, institutional and public validation can be an extremely important part of their healing. It can be an outward and visible recognition that indeed these people, their experiences are valid.
Then there is the fact that in our culture money talks. If an individual successfully launches a civil action and is awarded damages or restitution, it is a sign that he or she has been fully heard and has had that famous day in court. Of course, the sad truth is that these individuals, often so needy and damaged, probably need money to seek the services that they will require if they are to recover and lead happy and productive lives.
Madam Speaker, this bill proposes a 30-year limitation of actions in cases of physical abuse where there is a relationship of trust or dependence. The bill distinguishes between physical abuse and sexual abuse, because the memory loss which accompanies or can accompany sexual abuse does not usually accompany physical abuse. Thirty years allow minors to come of age, allow victims to regain their emotional composure and also the health required to initiate actions. It allows victims a necessary measure of safety from which to consider litigation.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, the current statutes neither reflect our current knowledge of victim psychology nor are they fair to victims of sexual abuse and physical abuse in relationships involving trust or dependency or both. The proposed amendment would free us from the constraints of antiquated legal rules and introduce a new measure of fairness into our courts. With this in mind, I recommend The Limitations of Actions Amendment Act to this House.
Mr. Mike Radcliffe (River Heights): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), that debate on this bill be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Committee Changes
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, might I have leave to make committee changes?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr. Laurendeau: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs be amended as follows: St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for Morris (Mr. Pitura).
Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Agriculture be amended as follows: The member for Ste. Rose du Lac (Mr. Cummings) for the member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach), and the member for River Heights (Radcliffe) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed).
Motions agreed to.
* (1620)
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 36--Wheat and Free Trade
Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), that
WHEREAS wheat has been the major grain produced in western Canada, and this wheat is without a doubt the best quality in the world; and
WHEREAS the protein level of this wheat has been high and in good demand by American millers, allowing Manitoba farmers to aggressively market this high-protein wheat to the United States; and
WHEREAS American farmers have protested these sales, claiming unfair subsidization, thus leading to a challenge by the United States government to the Canadian government to curtail wheat exports to the United States; and
WHEREAS the Canadian government, without challenge, conceded to export limitation and accepted quota limits on Canadian wheat to the United States, all without having our trade panels review Canadian wheat pricing.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba unanimously challenge the Canadian government's right and motives regarding this action and demand a reopening of the border to wheat exports until such time as the Arbitration Tribunal of the Free Trade Agreement can make reasoned and balanced decision.
Motion presented.
Mr. Pitura: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to finally stand up and speak to this resolution. It seemed every time I tried it was always six o'clock.
Madam Speaker, in 1988, when the federal government signed the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the grain farmers of Manitoba were filled with optimism. It was thought that this agreement would ensure that Manitoba's grain producers would have open and unfettered access to sell their crop to the American market. This would seem to be the intent of a bilateral free trade agreement. Yet I rise in the House today and must regrettably report that the anticipation and optimism that Manitoba's wheat producers felt seven years ago have been replaced by disappointment and frustration.
Madam Speaker, the vision that our province's farmers had, a vision of producers transporting and selling the world-renowned wheat to American consumers at the volumes they wished, was apparently not shared by the federal government or the Canadian Wheat Board. The summer of 1994 was a time of record levels of grain exports to the United States. It was a time when our farmers were reaping the benefits of being able to market the world's finest grain to the world's largest market. Yet, despite the benefits and rewards that come with a strong export market, the summer of 1994 also saw the federal government bow to American pressure and place a cap on the amount of Canadian wheat that can be exported on an annual basis to the U.S. market. Madam Speaker, the implementation of a cap on grain exports is viewed by Manitoba's grain growers as not only contrary to the spirit of free trade, but also as the politicians in Ottawa selling out their interests. It is important to remember that the federal government was not without options. There existed diplomatic options that were negotiated for, first, in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and options that were subsequently secured under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The federal government could also have sought an adequate solution under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades and yet, Madam Speaker, these options were not chosen. Rather than seeking a fair ruling as to free trade and its implications on Canadian wheat exports, the Canadian Wheat Board would administer an artificial level of trade. One is left to wonder what the games are of a free trade agreement when our federal counterparts choose not to use the mechanisms available when disputes such as this arise. Is it really the intention of a free trade agreement to limit exports when one nation achieves a trade advantage over another? It is clear that the notion of a cap violates the meaning and spirit of free trade.
When the Memorandum of Understanding was signed in 1994, it provided for the establishment of a joint commission on grains. The objective of this commission was to make recommendations to assist the Canadian and American governments reach a long-term solution to the problems in the grain sector. This commission, Madam Speaker, examined all aspects of the two countries' respective marketing practices. Having completed its preliminary report, the commission has made among others the following recommendations: (1) that the United States eliminate its Export Enhancement Program; (2) that the Canadian Wheat Board be placed at risk of profit or loss in the open marketplace; and, (3) that the domestic agricultural policies in both countries be modified to remove trade distorting effects.
Madam Speaker, as of September 12 of this year the one-year Canada-U.S. wheat agreement expired without being extended. The United States has indicated that they will continue to monitor Canadian wheat shipments to their market and will use their own trade laws if Canadian exports exceed the previous cap levels.
So Madam Speaker, as of today Manitoba's grain farmers are still forced to pool all of their harvest through the Canadian Wheat Board and are limited in the amount of grain they may sell into the American market. It is important to remember that these shackles are the ones that our own federal government allowed to be placed upon our farmers. They are restraints that did not have to be placed there and they are limitations that were thought to be destroyed after the negotiation of the Free Trade Agreement.
Madam Speaker, the Filmon government recognizes that Manitoba's farmers face enough challenges and obstacles in making ends meet without having to wage war with a federal government that is acting contrary to their best interests. Manitoba's farmers battle the forces of nature. They battle fierce international competition. They battle to make their loan and mortgage payments, and, in face of all this, they need a federal government that is willing to go to battle for them.
Madam Speaker, the farmers of Manitoba have faced a further challenge with the recent elimination of the Crow rate for the transportation of grain. Due to the central location of our province, this has certainly increased the transportation costs our farmers face, somewhere in the neighbourhood of about $200 million.
Yet we are not without our advantages. The first and foremost is that Manitoba's farmers produce the highest-quality wheat in the world. The second is that our province and our bread belt is bordered along one of the largest consuming markets in the world. Yet, as commendable as these advantages are, what good are they if our federal government will not allow Manitoba's farmers to capitalize upon them?
Madam Speaker, imagine the frustration of a farmer who has worked around the clock to ensure a successful crop and then is forced to turn that wheat over to the Wheat Board and is not allowed to seek out the most lucrative market for their harvest. The frustration surrounding these circumstances has caused some of our Manitoba farmers to defy the law and be subject to prosecution.
May I suggest, Madam Speaker, that this is not free trade, this is not fair trade and this is not right.
The United States Export Enhancement Program is the most trade-distorting mechanism in the whole of the international markets. For Canada to not insist and use every available means to ensure its elimination is deplorable. Our government is steadfast in its belief that the legislators in Ottawa need to continue to ensure that the U.S. border remains open to Canadian exports. From the outset this government has strongly opposed the wheat cap and has felt that there was sufficient protection under the GATT and the NAFTA agreements without having the federal government cave in and agree to a cap.
Madam Speaker, we need the Canadian Wheat Board and the federal Liberals to understand that Manitoba has a very distinct locational advantage for marketing in the U.S. We need them to understand that our farmers have to capitalize on their inherent strengths in the face of many challenges. We need the legislators to act upon that understanding and support the farmers of this province and country.
As I travel throughout my constituency during the year, I witness first-hand the effort and dedication that is required to bring in a successful harvest. Those individuals who choose to work Manitoba's farmland for a livelihood do not do so in the hope of an easy living, and they do not do so in the hope of an easy paycheck. No, Madam Speaker, they do it because they have a love of the land and the satisfaction that it provides. Yet, in these fields that produce the ingredients for the food the world consumes, there is a growing and real sense of frustration. It stems from the belief that the federal government has interests other than that of Manitoba's farmers at heart. It stems from a belief that they have had their interests sold out and that they lack a strong voice in our nation's capital.
Yet our government has chosen to make a stand, and we have chosen to stand with the farmers of Manitoba. We have chosen to support their right to sell their grain products directly and without limits to our neighbours to the south.
* (1630)
Today, Madam Speaker, I ask all members of this Assembly to take a similar stand and support Manitoba's farmers in their fight for free trade by approving this resolution. It is my belief that they have not only earned our respect but they have earned our support. Thank you.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Morris for bringing forward this resolution and putting those interesting comments regarding the Wheat Board on record.
When we look at what this is all about and we look at the Free Trade Agreement that was signed in 1988, I can remember many of the discussions that took place at that time.
People said, well, if we get into this Free Trade Agreement, our Wheat Board is going to be under attack. If we get into this Free Trade Agreement, other supports for farmers are going to be under attack. Our orderly marketing is going to be under attack. But no, the proponents of free trade said, oh, no, do not worry, just like we do not have to worry about our unemployment insurance and our health standards, everything is going to be fine under free trade.
Well, let us look down the road, and what do we have here? We have the Free Trade Agreement and we have our Unemployment Insurance program being eroded and brought into line with American programs. We have our health care system certainly under attack, and we have the Crow benefit gone that was a support for farmers, and we have the Wheat Board under attack, something that the supporters of free trade had said would never happen.
As we had said would happen, that has become a reality, and we see the U.S., Americans wanting to get rid of our Wheat Board, and they have an ally right here in this province where we have producers here in this province who think that they can do a much better job on their own and have forgotten the real value of the Wheat Board and why it was introduced, because it brought equality to all farmers across the Prairies.
We have proponents, people right here in this House, saying that we should be getting rid of the Wheat Board. I am extremely surprised to hear those kinds of comments, Madam Speaker, especially in light of the fact that last year when we had a vote on the Wheat Board Advisory Committee, there was overwhelming support for the Wheat Board, and it was those people who were in support of the Wheat Board who got the support, farmers indicating very clearly that they want to see the Wheat Board maintained.
It is a shame that we have people within our own country trying to become allies with the Americans in undermining the very supports that are very important to farmers in this country.
With respect to the caps, I was also, as all of us were on this side of the House, disappointed that the federal government agreed to the caps on the amount of wheat that would go into the United States.
We had expected a stronger fight from the federal government on that issue, Madam Speaker, but I guess when we look at what the federal Liberals have done and the actions that they have taken toward the farmers, we should not be surprised that they did not take a stronger stand on it.
Madam Speaker, that cap has been removed, but the Americans have stated clearly that they intend to watch this very closely and consult with Ottawa if shipments should exceed, but there is in fact a temporary agreement in place now that the caps are--it is not a permanent cap. But I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that I believe the Americans are going to be trying to get this permanent cap in place, and if it is not, they are going to be negotiating to get other things removed for Canadian farmers. In fact, it is stated in the Co-operator that the United States will convince Canada to permanently cap wheat exports to the U.S. by using supply management systems and the possibility of separation to lever the Americans into putting in place a permanent cap.
So, Madam Speaker, this issue of capping the amount of grain into the United States is not a fair move, and I think we have to look at why we are shipping grain into the United States. Basically, we are shipping grain into the United States because they have created a vacuum by shipping their grain out of the country under the Export Enhancement Program, and Canada is filling that vacuum. If they were not shipping that grain out, there would not nearly be the market there. We also have to recognize that we have a very high-quality grain here in this country that Americans do want for their pasta plants.
I think that we have to also look at more development so that we would be using that high-quality grain to get value-added jobs here in this country as well, but we will never process all that grain. We do have to ship some of it to the U.S. market, but we should not be trying to sacrifice the Wheat Board to ensure that that market is there. It is a high-quality grain. They want it. We will be able to access that market because it is needed, and saying that we should allow farmers to travel back and forth across the border and make their own deals is absolutely ridiculous, because within a very short time we would clog up those elevators across the border, and we would have a bigger fight than you can imagine from American farmers. In fact, that is one of the reasons for the cap, because the American farmers do not want to see our grain coming across the border and clogging up their system.
So, Madam Speaker, there are issues that should be addressed. The federal government should be working very hard to ensure that we do have access to those markets, but the federal government and the Canadian Wheat Board should also be looking for other markets. We should not be tying ourselves completely to the American market. There are people all over the world who are hungry, millions of people who need food, and we can be exporting to other countries as well. We should not just be saying that this is the only market that we can depend on. There are many more markets that we can look at, and we should not be threatened by the heavy-handedness of the Americans who want to see our Wheat Board eliminated, who want to see our supply management eliminated.
Past Canadian governments have worked very hard to develop a special system here in Canada, one of them being the Canadian Wheat Board, to ensure that there is equality for those who live farther from the market and those that live closer to the market. If we look back at history, before the Wheat Board was in place there were people who were--smaller farmers who had to sell their grain early in the fall to make their payments versus those that were larger operators and could hold out for the higher prices. Those people really suffered without the Wheat Board, and I would be very disappointed to hear that there is a move on the part of the government side not to support the Canadian Wheat Board.
I am anxiously awaiting the full recommendations from the Canada-U.S. Grain Commission. We heard the preliminary reports and I was very disappointed when that report recommended that the Wheat Board be placed at risk of the marketplace because really that is the beginning of the dismantling of the Wheat Board.
I think that we cannot take our supports away from our producers and allow the Americans to continue with the supports they have. The Americans have done their share of distorting markets. As I said, they have their Export Enhancement Program, they have paid farmers large amounts of money to take land out of production, and they certainly have their share of supports there.
We have to look at the way that both countries do trade. They are different countries, but in no way does Canada support their farmers more. In fact, now that the federal Liberals have taken away the Crow benefit and the pooling benefits that western Canadian farmers had, our farmers are at a very serious disadvantage. If we even consider taking the Wheat Board away, we will further jeopardize the farmers, particularly those who live some distance away.
* (1640)
I think that in a country such as Canada, we should be looking at equality for all producers, not looking at the people who live along the border and, say, oh, yes, let us get rid of the Wheat Board because this is good for these producers down here, and to heck with the rest of the province, the rest of Canada. That is not the way Canada works. I think we have to be very careful with those kinds of suggestions.
Certainly, there are concerns with the capping. We feel that both countries should be able to trade. If you look at the trade stats, there is an excess of a far greater amount of trade coming into Canada. My colleague the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) just the other day raised the issue that we are having much more goods coming into Canada than are being exported into the United States.
So we should not be having our grain capped that goes into the United States. We have to look at all the balances of trade, but that should be able to be worked out without caps. We should not even dream about saying that we are going to improve trade into the U.S. by removing the Canadian Wheat Board.
I think we have to clearly remember that when the Free Trade Agreement was signed, we were told that we did not have to worry, that there would not be any trade barriers. If this is a true free trade agreement, trade caps should not be put in place, they should be able to be worked out, but I think we have to really recognize what this Free Trade Agreement is. It is free trade for the United States, and Canada takes what is left over.
We should be standing up and fighting for the very important parts of our farming economy, and in particular, we should be fighting to ensure that the Canadian Wheat Board stays in place.
I have concerns that the federal Minister of Agriculture has said he is going to be reviewing the Canadian Wheat Board. That frightens me because I am sure that part of his plan is once he starts to review it, he is going to be moving in the direction of dismantling, and that certainly is not what farmers want.
As I say, farmers spoke very clearly when they had the vote last fall on the Wheat Board. They voted for the people who were in favour of maintaining the Wheat Board. People who were supporting dual marketing in fact got one seat of all the seats on the Wheat Board Advisory Committee.
There is tremendous support for the Wheat Board. We should not even consider dismantling it. Certainly we have to have trade with the U.S., but we should not be banking on all of our trade going that way. We should be looking for other markets.
We have to also be very vigilant and ensure that the United States does not try to play games with other parts of the farming economy. I would be very concerned if in fact they are going--and I know that the United States has many times said that supply management is unfair for Canadian farmers as well.
I want to put very clearly on the record that our position is that the Wheat Board must be maintained. We do want trade with the United States but not at any price. We are not willing to sacrifice our supply management boards, our supply management system.
I would have hoped, when I first saw the title of this resolution that the member would have stated in his resolution that he was very much in support of the Wheat Board. I am disappointed to hear that that is not the direction he is taking.
I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that we will continue to speak up for farmers, as they have spoken up for themselves when they had their vote, that we will want to see the Wheat Board maintained and work along with producers in that respect. Thank you.
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise on the resolution that is before the House today, dealing with the whole grain marketing system.
I guess when you really look at the resolution, we are not really only dealing with the grain marketing system in Canada or North America. Really what the resolution speaks to is the ability of the three countries that have signed the NAFTA agreement to in fact abide by the rules established under that agreement. That is what is in question here.
I think we can go back in history only a very short period of time. During the debate of the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States, there was a very significant effort made by the American negotiators to do away or call into question many of the programs that Canada had for decades used to encourage the production of agricultural goods in western Canada. One of the key issues that was raised continually during the FTA negotiations, the debates, was, of course, the benefits that farmers received under the Crow rate.
The second issue that was raised time and time again was the validity of the supply management system that Canada had established for its poultry, dairy and a number of other sectors. The third one was, of course, a question as to whether Canada should be allowed to maintain under the auspices of the Free Trade Agreement the system of support, the ad hoc system of support to agriculture that Canada had utilized for many, many years, such as the special grains program and those kinds of things.
Canada in turn countered and called into question the EEP program, the Export Enhancement Program, the farm stabilization program that the Americans had used and the on-farm storage program, the land set-aside program and many of those kinds of programs that the United States has used.
In the final negotiations that took place just before 1988, during 1987, when I sat on the Canadian Federation of Agriculture board of directors as a vice-president, one of the most interesting things happened, that our negotiators were able to convince the American government and the people negotiating on their behalf that we should sign an agreement which would allow Canada to institutionalize, really, those programs under the auspices of that FTA, and, similarly, we would not call then into question the Americans' right to keep their land set-aside program, to support agriculture within their boundaries and to allow the quotas that had been used to keep goods out of each others' countries to disappear.
That was the issue and that was the real trade-off. We would do away with the quotas, and in place of that we would put in place a series of tariffs, and the tariffs would be determined by a binational panel, and whatever the determination was, that is where the quotas would be set, agreed to.
Canada, in my estimation, came out by far the big winner in the Free Trade Agreement. I will never forget the day that I walked into this Legislature and the weeks ensuing when the opposition members, time and time again, criticized the Free Trade Agreement, and they said it would have a major economic impact on this country, and it would cause huge detrimental effects to employment in this country. Well, how far from wrong, how far from the truth was that, and were they utterly wrong?
We have seen a very major increase in employment in this province and indeed in this country because of the agreements that have been struck because now and for the next five years hence until the true total impact of the Free Trade Agreement and the NAFTA agreement come into being, and remember that it was a 10-year tariff reduction program that we were negotiating, the true impact of that agreement will not be felt till at least five years hence. So roughly about the year 2000 will be the final year of the determination of how effective the agreements really were.
* (1650)
What struck me as utterly astounding from a farmer's perspective and a politician's view in Manitoba is that the federal government during the last two years allowed itself to be manipulated by federal negotiators and allowed themselves to be persuaded that our wheat exports in fact had a deterring effect on pricing in the United States. How wrong they were. Consequently, the federal government in Ottawa agreed to limit the exports of wheat and grains into the United States simply by the fact of the persuasion of the federal U.S. negotiators.
Not once did we call into question the Export Enhancement Program and the effect that had in the decrease of pricing in Canada that would in fact allow us to market into the U.S. under their supported program. That is the key issue in this resolution. That is what we are debating in this resolution.
Now, why are we discussing the Wheat Board? I have always been a strong, strong supporter of the Wheat Board. I think the Wheat Board has done a marvellous job in the past, but let us look at the real world today. Let us look at what happened. Let us look at the decision that the federal Liberals have made in the last two years.
They have done away with the Special Grains Program. They have said there will no longer ever be another special consideration made to keep agriculture in business in western Canada. Okay, let us accept that. That is what they have said.
They did away with the Crow benefit, something that we had held sacred as farmers forever because it caused each and every one of us to be allowed to export, market our grain or put our grain into an exportable position at the same price. Whether you lived in Alberta, whether you lived in Hochstadt, Manitoba, it did not matter. The price of shipping grain off the farm in western Canada was equalized through that agreement. We threw it out the window. What did that do? We put in place a small payment in recognition of the hurt that we would be caused over the next millennium, $1.6 billion. What do we do? We in Manitoba accepted the fact that we were hurt the most, yet we would be compensated the least. Those are realities. Those are facts.
We know that Alberta will probably be the biggest benefactor of the $1.6 billion amount. We know that Saskatchewan will be the second biggest benefactor, and we know that Manitoba will receive the least. Why? What does that do to Manitoba farmers? The fact of the matter is we will now pay some $45 a tonne additional for shipping grain out of Manitou or Pilot Mound into any of the export markets, regardless of what the true cost is. We will not be allowed to, under the current terms, be allowed to designate our shipments through southern ports down the Mississippi and through the gulf ports, and even if we were, our cost would be based on the export price of Vancouver and Thunder Bay--not Thunder Bay, but Baie-Comeau. Thunder Bay used to be our export position--no longer. We now pay the full cost without pooling through to Baie-Comeau.
So farmers are asking the question, in light of the fact that the price of wheat yesterday at Chicago was $519 U.S. Now you multiply that times $1.36 yesterday. Tell me what the price of Canadian wheat should be on the farm in Manitoba, even in Swan River. It would be almost $8 a bushel for wheat in Swan River, Manitoba. Durum wheat today based on U.S. prices would sell for better than $10 a bushel, Madam Speaker, and yet, when I take my load of wheat to the elevator to sell to the Canadian Wheat Board, I am paid today less than $4.
I have no guarantee that there will be a final payment. If they make money on the future sales, there will be. But there is no guarantee that the Export Enhancement Program will not be used by the Americans to drive our export markets down to a limit where I will receive a final price of less than $4 a bushel when I could be marketing today directly and hauling by truck for a lot less than $45 a tonne, my grain, just across the line from my place.
Anybody from Swan River could haul their grain for less than $45 a tonne to a U.S. market, I kid you not, and yet we are forced to, by the same old rules that we applied years ago, when all the other rules have changed.
Now, Madam Speaker, I very briefly make the case to you. All the other things have changed. Should we then enshrine the Crow or should we then enshrine the Canadian Wheat Board to keep on operating the way they have in the past? I say no. That is the question.
I say to you that it is time that we recognize that we as farmers and we as legislators in this building had better start addressing the real issue that will face us and in a realistic manner start negotiation and discussion on how we best serve our farmers and to set aside the institutions that we have had and draft new agreements for new institutions that will serve the needs of the farmers today under the new changes and the new rules and the new criteria that we are faced to deal with.
That, Madam Speaker, is the essence of this resolution. It does not destroy the Wheat Board. It does not destroy the free market system. It enhances both. It would allow the individual to make the free choice. And I say it is about time that we as legislators start giving the freedom back to the people.
That should not deter us from making the choice whether we want to retain the services of the board. They have done a marvellous job, and I think they can do a marvellous job in the future. But it will have to be done under new rules.
I say it is about time we look at new rules to accompany and provide the same rationale that we are now no longer as farmers subjected to the same kind of costs that we were before, our costs varied vastly from one end of western Canada to another.
We never questioned once when we applied the rules of limitation of wheat exports to the United States the ability of the Americans to export corn into western Canada. We allowed them free access to our feed market, drove our barley prices way down. We never questioned once the Americans' ability to export to us.
We never questioned once their ability to export whatever they chose to into Manitoba whether it be John Deere tractors to compete against our Ford-built tractors in Manitoba. We never questioned that. We never questioned how many jobs they took from us in that sector. Neither did the opposition. Should we not? I think so because that is at the core of this whole matter.
So I say to you, I would ask all members opposite and all members of this House to help us pass this resolution.
Committee Changes
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Agriculture be amended as follows: Broadway (Mr. Santos) for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) for Thursday, October 26, 1995, for 8 p.m.
I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs be amended as follows: Osborne (Ms. McGifford) for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) for Thursday, October 26, 1995, for 8 p.m.
Motions agreed to.
Madam Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., as previously agreed, Resolution 37.
* (1700)
Res. 37--Extension of Pay Equity Legislation
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that
WHEREAS in 1985, The Pay Equity Act was passed unanimously by the Manitoba Legislature; and
WHEREAS The Pay Equity Act was Canada's first noncomplaint based pay equity legislation and was used as a model in other jurisdictions for the implementation of pay equity; and
WHEREAS the act required employers in a portion of Manitoba's public sector to correct gender-based wage discrimination by applying the principles of equal pay for work of equal value; and
WHEREAS in November 1988, then-Minister of Labour Ed Connery initiated an information-gathering process with a view to a thorough assessment of the implementation of pay equity to date and a determination of which new pay equity initiatives should be implemented; and
WHEREAS the provincial government pledged to extend pay equity into the broader public sector and indicated that it would support a review of the legislation to ensure the intentions of the act are maintained in terms of maintenance of wage gains for affected groups; and
WHEREAS only a few school divisions have voluntarily implemented pay equity principles, and there has been no action on extending legislation to the broader public sector or municipalities; and
WHEREAS there is still a substantial wage gap between women and men in Manitoba; and
WHEREAS barriers to equal pay for women mean that many families do not have an adequate income; and
WHEREAS women working in both the public and private sectors should be guaranteed fair pay for their work.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial government to consider studying the experiences of other jurisdictions which have implemented pay equity legislation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) to consider beginning consultations on the extension of pay equity legislation in Manitoba.
Motion presented.
Ms. McGifford: I am pleased today to rise and to speak on this resolution on pay equity legislation and to recommend its acceptance to all honourable members. It is certainly my hope that this resolution will come to a vote and will not join all the previous resolutions at the bottom of the Order Paper.
The resolution before us addresses an issue which tradition places near the heart of New Democrats and which is in conjunction with our policies. Equity issues are very much a part of our commitment to social and to economic justice and to the full and equal participation of women in all aspects of community life.
I trust that our just causes can and should be shared by the members opposite, therefore it seems to me that all fair-minded members of this Legislative Assembly will support this resolution, which is modest, asking only that the House urge our government to study pay equity legislation in other jurisdictions and, secondly, urge our Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) to begin consultations on the extension of pay equity legislation in Manitoba.
The need for the extension of pay equity is everywhere before us, and without being thoroughly inclusive, I will provide some examples.
We know that the numbers of women in the working force have grown considerably. As Stats Canada put it in its spring 1995 publication, Canadian Social Trends, and here I quote from Stats Canada: Of all the social and economic changes that have affected the Canadian labour force during the past two decades, one of the most pronounced has been the increase in women's employment. We know, however, that this increase in the number of women in the labour force has not been matched by commensurate changes in the differences between the earnings of men and women. Although the gap between men's and women's wages has narrowed, women employed full time and part time continue to earn considerably less than their male counterparts, regardless of age or levels of education. The gap is narrowing as increasing proportions of women with higher levels of education and more work experience move into better paying jobs. Still, narrowing is not good enough.
The very best-case scenario with respect to wage differences occurs in the group of women aged 24 to 34 and of this group who have university degrees. This group makes 84 percent of what their male counterparts earn. The greatest discrepancy between male and female wages is that group of women between 45 and 54, who have some post-secondary education. This group, to our shame, makes 51 percent of what their respective male counterparts earn. In other words, in this group and with this level of education, a woman makes 51 cents for every dollar that her male counterpart makes.
On the average, and this is all categories, all ages, women earn 71.66 percent of what their male counterparts earn. Calculated over the years this is, of course, a staggering difference and will make a staggering difference in the quality of life and pensions, and that is just to name two factors.
Before proceeding, I want to return briefly to that category of women between 45 and 54. I was not surprised to discover that this is the group to suffer the greatest discrimination in earnings, but I was not quite prepared for the severity of the discrimination.
I think that we know, at least women know, that, all posturing to the contrary, women in Canadian society continue to be valued almost in direct proportion to their age and that the group between 45 and 54 fall definitely into what society views as the shop-worn category. The statistics on earning underline this very sorry and discriminatory fact. On the average, women in this category make 67 cents for every dollar that their male counterparts earn.
It is not surprising then that old women are among the poorest of Canadians and that an astounding number of old women live in poverty. It is not surprising that on an average day any one of us can go to a supermarket, Safeway, et cetera, and see our elderly female constituents searching for cheap cuts of meat or bargains of all kinds.
Madam Speaker, I represent a constituency which is home to many seniors, many of whom live on fixed incomes, and women's fixed incomes are nearly always fixed lower than their male counterparts. One of the grim and ugly realities of female life is that 75 percent of Canadian women live out the last quarter of their lives in poverty.
Today I want to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) to assume some responsibility for redressing these inequities. Let us move to ensure that history does not repeat itself, trapping still another generation of Manitoba women who must live their declining years in want and poverty.
The need for pay equity is apparent too in the child poverty rates in our province. We know that Manitoba has a greater incidence of childhood poverty than any other province in Canada. We know that 25 percent of our children live in poverty. We know that the rates of poverty are the severest among single-parent families and that 86 percent of single-parent families are headed by women.
These families need more money, and they deserve fairness. We need pay equity. While some of these families are on social assistance, others are supported by women wage earners, some of whom are the working poor, some who earn liveable incomes, and then there is the odd woman who does financially very well. But only a very few of these women makes a dollar for every dollar earned by their male counterparts.
I think that at our current rate of narrowing the gap between male and female wages, we will strike parity sometime in the next millennium.
* (1710)
Of course, pay equity by itself will not eliminate childhood poverty, but it will not hurt, and it might help. Members of this side of the House certainly encourage the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) to give it a try. I am sure that the 86 percent of single-parent families headed by women, especially the 57 percent of those families who live below the poverty line, will be very grateful indeed, not to mention the other women in Manitoba who currently have no choice but to tolerate discriminatory earnings.
Clearly, pay equity is a social justice and a Status of Women issue since the society where women and men are paid different wages for the same or equal work is a society where women are not recognized as full and equal participants. Add to this the growing feminization of poverty, the childhood poverty of our province and the terrible ramifications of poverty, the need for the extension of pay equity legislation is certainly apparent. Women working in both the public and private sectors should receive equal pay for equal work.
Turning more specifically to the issue of pay equity, I want to highlight the contribution of Mary Beth Dolin, a dedicated feminist and a New Democrat Minister of Labour during the early '80s. Dolan's personal vision and commitment were behind The Pay Equity Act, which the House passed in 1985, making Manitoba the first jurisdiction in Canada to pass pay equity legislation.
The Minister of Labour in 1985, Al Mackling, was responsible for the passage of this noncomplaint based, proactive legislation.
The act provided for the implementation of pay equity programs based on job evaluations, first in the provincial civil service, later in external agencies such as Crown corps like MTS and Manitoba Hydro, 23 health care facilities and four universities.
The first pay adjustments were announced on October 1, 1987, the culmination of a two-year process in which the government and the Manitoba Government Employees' Association had first negotiated and then implemented a job evaluation plan.
Pay equity negotiations have been successfully concluded in all agencies, though with the election of a Tory government in 1988, in 1990 health care workers were forced to resort to a court challenge and in 1991 the court decided in their favour.
In 1985, the members opposite adopted the position that legislation was not required, that pay equity could be negotiated through collective bargaining. Later, I understand the Premier (Mr. Filmon) announced a commitment to extending pay equity which emerged in 1988 with the then-Minister of Labour, Ed Connery, initiating an information-gathering process. Later, the government pledged to extend pay equity into the broader public sector. Finally, many other pledges and promises were made.
Unfortunately, the Tory pay equity pledge was based on a voluntary approach to pay equity. Though the government in 1991 provided some funding incentives, which they hoped would induce school divisions to implement pay equity, past experience shows that the voluntary approach is not a method that usually works.
As this resolution points out, not all school divisions have voluntarily implemented pay equity principles, and there has been no action on extending legislation to the municipalities. Then there is the private sector. Those in positions of power and those holding the purse strings are usually unwilling to voluntarily give their money or power away.
I have perused Hansard in order to establish just what this government's current pay equity position might be, and all I find is a record of prevarication and inaction, and here is an example, Madam Speaker. Recently, I was told by the Minister of Labour's (Mr. Toews) office that the Pay Equity Bureau, established in accordance with the 1985 Pay Equity Act, was disbanded in 1994 because the work was done. Well, quite clearly, legislation will be required if pay equity is to be extended, and, just as clearly, we need some leadership from this Minister of Labour.
The minister can certainly turn to the progressive legislation passed by the State of Minnesota and the Provinces of Ontario and British Columbia. He can return to Manitoba's Pay Equity Act. I particularly recommend to the minister Ontario's Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act, which mandated not only pay equity in most Ontario workplaces but also employment equity.
I add with regret that it appears Ontario's new draconian government is committed to dismantling this progressive legislation. One wonders if anyone will be left working in Ontario and if anyone will enjoy social justice. For my money, I prefer the wisdom of Rosalie Abella to Mike Harris's knee-jerk agenda, and I cite here Ms. Abella's Royal Commission report of 1984 in which she recommended legislated employment equity in all workplaces. I am sure our Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) knows the document, and now if only Mike Harris knew it, and he apparently does not.
The current government of Manitoba said it is for women's equality. The Minister for the Status of Women (Mrs. Vodrey) frequently reminds us of her personal commitment to Manitoba women and of her government's action in promoting the status of women; but, when women begin to ask for legislative commitment, that is usually when the excuses start. Of course, rationalizations for barring women from equal status in society are as common and hidebound as corporate donors at a Tory fundraiser.
Of course, too, women have traditionally worked for free and now some employers expect women to work for less. There are a host of frequently cited arguments against pay equity like these ones: Pay equity threatens the free market system; pay equity means the end of a free and democratic society.
In closing, I point to the importance of learning from experience in other jurisdictions and urge the minister to do his homework. Second, I urge the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) to begin public consultations on pay equity but do not drag them out, for, finally, I remind the minister that the bottom line from women in women's groups is straightforward, basically this, just give us the money, we have our lives to lead and our families to care for.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Northern Affairs): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to address this issue on behalf of this side of the House. I know there are other members who want to contribute to this debate.
The member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) has outlined some of the history of pay equity legislation in Manitoba, and I must say, in what I would consider to be a very partisan way. In fact, many of the specific facts that she outlined, she tended to gloss over very quickly many of the things that this government has done on this issue in a way that I think was very unfair to the many people who were involved in that particular process, both on these benches and in the community.
My observation is that many of her analyses of this issue are quite frankly very simplistic, I say this to her, very simplistic. Her parting comment as she sat down about, just give us the money and we will go live our lives, well, it begs a whole host of questions. You know, the member sits in a party whose fundamental principle on its labour side has been free collective bargaining.
When I, as Minister of Labour, minister responsible for pay equity, dealt with the implementation of this legislation--and I just want to remind the member when she mentioned about the health care facilities, the reason why there was a problem in health care facilities was because when her party was in power, they only included in the legislation 23 of the health care facilities. The women working in all the others did not matter to the New Democratic Party when they were in government. They did not matter.
Twenty-three were legislated in the act, only 23, so women working at the Beausejour Hospital or the Pinawa Hospital or the smaller facilities in Manitoba were not important to this so-called high-principle party, only the women in the 23 institutions that they named.
An Honourable Member: What was the rationale for that?
Mr. Praznik: Well, I am not going to defend the rationale that was done. We came to power, we had to deal with their issue and we worked through the issue. The court challenge was a little more complicated than the member would let on, but the issues were dealt with. They were dealt with in an negotiated way, and they were fulfilled.
But not for one minute should the member for Osborne stand on a pedestal in this House as if her party is the only party that has fairness because, quite frankly, their legislation brought into law a very fundamental unfairness in picking which institutions would be covered by the legislation, and she should not forget that.
Madam Speaker, coming back to the point I made about free collective bargaining, this whole issue does raise a fundamental question, and particularly in the public sector where public-sector unions like the MGEU, the health care unions, et cetera, are very powerful and have been very powerful--unions that were led by her party Leader, Mr. Doer, who represented thousands of women in the public service of this province through a number of negotiations.
* (1720)
I have to ask why the representatives of those employees who come to the table in bargaining were not addressing those issues on a regular basis in bargaining those categories of salaries on behalf of their members. Why was legislation even needed to equalize categories if those people had been properly represented over the years?
Now, I can guess some of the reasons. Obviously, there is a history to this. I accept that; we understand that. There is a history to this. Traditionally, over the years, women have been paid less in female-dominated categories in government. We know that. That has to be addressed, and had to be. I have always argued, and I think anyone who believes in free collective bargaining, that that is a place to address it, in the bargaining process.
There is also another side to this coin that makes pay equity, the implementation of it, very, very difficult, because one of the experiences I saw in the public sector, as we went through, as the people went through--and a lot of the work was done before I became minister--but from working and talking with the people who dealt with this, you start to learn some of the problems.
When you start assessing categories and raising certain categories up to the other, it begs the question, maybe some categories are too high for the work that is done. But the legislation that was brought in said specifically you could not make any adjustments downward for male-dominated categories that might have been overpaid for the work that was done because that might create a problem.
So what happens at the end of the day? What free collective bargaining should ultimately do is that, within a bargaining union that is representing a host of units, levels and categories, there is the relative nature of what people pay for the work to do. Overtime gets sorted out. Once you start to distort that, you have a host of other problems that take place. Those problems are still working themselves through the system in the public sector today.
So let no one believe for one moment that this a simple, easy process that has to be taken on. There are a lot of side effects that the member does not deal with. No one on this side, certainly not me, is arguing that people should not be trying to achieve a level of pay and remuneration that is fair, just and affordable for the work that they are doing. Whether a person is a man or a woman doing the work should not be a determining factor in leading to a difference for the same kind of work.
The magic solution of getting it to legislation is not as simple as the member would have us believe, and I think experience has proven that out. That may in fact be one of the reasons why the New Democratic Party only provided in health care for 23 of our largest institutions as opposed to everyone across the board because it was not so simplistic.
Madam Speaker, the member plays down the work that we did on this side of the House, the honourable member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach) as the Minister of Education, myself as Civil Service minister, when we had to go to the Treasury Board to find some 50 million additional dollars to extend pay equity into the school division side for nonteaching staff. We had to go, we had to find that money, and we brought it in on a voluntary basis and the take-up of school divisions was very, very high. I do not know, cannot remember, recall offhand what percentage, but it was very, very high, of schools divisions that adopted that process, and the work was done.
The real issue for the member here is the extension or the bringing in of legislation to the private sector. This government has always taken the position, and I had the privilege of serving as Minister of Labour when we took that position, that we would not extend legislation into the private sector, that the remuneration of any individual in the private sector was for them to work out whether it be through their union who represents them or them as individuals. That was their responsibility to work out.
We as public sector employers took it upon ourselves through two governments to address the issue through legislation for a voluntary aspect, and it was addressed for us as employers with our employees. I still have to ask the question of why this did not occur, in the last 10 or 15 years when we are in a very supposedly enlightened age, at the collective bargaining table.
In fact, I can say to the member from my experience at collective bargaining, it was never an issue. It was not something that was coming up. It was not raised by many of those public sector unions.
So obviously there was a failure I think over the years on the part of many of our public sector unions to want to address the issue, because it is tough. It is a tough one, because you may solve a problem here but you create another one over here, and it is difficult to deal with.
Getting back to the issue of extending or bringing in pay equity for the private sector, the member asked us to look at examples in other places.
Well, let us look at the example in the province of Ontario in which the Rae government brought in extremely comprehensive legislation. Was it a success? Did it lead to solving or dealing with the issues? I think any criteria by which you judge a successful program should be the ease with which it is administered and implemented because, if there is not an ease with which to do it, if it becomes too cumbersome in many ways, it does not get done, resentment grows, and it becomes a great difficulty.
That in fact turned out to be the case with the legislation that was brought in in the province of Ontario and turned out to be bitterly opposed by many, even many who were to be the beneficiaries of that program because, ultimately, the question for people working is, what is a fair wage? It is what one can negotiate, what one can work out with one's employer. We would hope and we would want to ensure as much as possible that people are not doing the same work, a male and a female, and being disadvantaged by that but, ultimately, what that category should be paid is a matter of negotiation whether it be on an individual basis or it be through collective bargaining.
The member makes reference to a lot of particular statistics about categories of people and percentage of income and, yes, that does point to a general problem but, when you get down to dealing with the specifics of the situation, the specifics of the components that make up those overall numbers become much more difficult to deal with because there are hosts of other factors that fit into those issues.
Just one that comes to mind very, very quickly when you talk about our elderly seniors and you look at life expectancy, obviously, if one lives longer, and everyone would like to live longer, women tend to live longer in our society than men. That simply implies to me that there has to be a larger base of resources, that a family in planning for their retirement has to ensure that there are greater resources available for the party who is likely to survive, whoever that may be. That fits into one's planning for one's retirement. That has to be taken into account. There are other components of breaking down those statistics and situations. The answer to just bring in legislation and require everybody to meet these standards, I think, becomes so complex, so burdensome, that at the end of the day one does not achieve the goal that the member is attempting to achieve.
Madam Speaker, from some of our own experiences in Manitoba in health care in the public sector in areas where we did bring in pay equity--again, pay equity that did not judge the value of a job and bring them to a level playing field but brought everybody up and never dealt with areas where people may have been overpaid compared to other standards led to a host of other problems that had to be worked out over the years in bargaining. I would even suggest, in some categories, led to coming back to exactly where people were before pay equity. So it is not by any stretch of the imagination as simple as the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) would have us believe.
The member for Osborne made a comment that I think was very insightful of her thinking and that of her party. She said that people working in the public and private sectors who do the same work should receive equal pay for that. Madam Speaker, she should think about that a little more because in many cases in the public sector in Manitoba over the last 20 or 30 years, the rates of pay--particularly for areas that have been highly employing female workers--have been higher in the public sector than they have been in the private sector where the market drives the force. That has certainly been true when one does the analysis in the civil service. I am not saying that is good or bad. I am glad that that has been there to do it, but the member should do a little more research on what is a very complex issue.
* (1730)
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I appreciate this debate because I have had the advantage of being able to be in this Chamber at the time that the original pay equity legislation was discussed. I find it rather amusing the kind of argument that the minister used. He said, well, the original pay equity bill did not do this, it did not do that, it did not go far enough. Well, the minister referenced some of the health care facilities that were not covered under the legislation. It is interesting because it reminds me, we had a debate a few days ago when one of the government members got up and talked about the child care system in this province and said, boy, we have the best regulations in North America.
Well, it is interesting, Madam Speaker, because I was here when it took an NDP government to bring in those child care regulations, and I was here when it took an NDP government to bring in pay equity in the public sector. Now I just want to compare--and anybody who wishes to compare can go to Hansard and compare--the statements made by the former Minister of Labour with the statements that were made by the Conservatives at the time. I will not reference the child care comments, although I could talk about just how much effort it took and how little support there was from the Conservative side for what was undertaken by the government at the time. But let us talk about pay equity.
Did the Conservative Party in opposition say, we want stronger pay equity, amend the legislation, extend it in to those health care facilities that the minister referenced? Did they do that? Well, not only did they not do that, I will tell you what they did. Day in and day out, the current Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), who was then the Labour critic, got up in this House and in Question Period asked questions on a repeated basis about why we were bringing pay equity in, what was going to happen, were we going to set up a pay equity police. Yes, Madam Speaker, he talked about a pay equity police.
Let there be no doubt that if we had not had a NDP government, we would not have had pay equity in the public sector, period. Let the former Minister of Labour not mislead the House by suggesting with his comments today that somehow the Conservatives wanted stronger pay equity. They never did want pay equity legislation in the public sector. That was very clear from their comments at the time, and, quite frankly, I do not think, listening to the comments of the minister, that they are even committed at this point of time to pay equity, period.
I heard all the old arguments that were trotted out about pay equity at the beginning, and I really find it amusing that the former Minister of Labour, who, I thought, in his previous role, would have attempted to come down to some understanding about the collective bargaining process and the role both of management and of labour--he criticized unions today for not achieving pay equity.
I find it interesting because, first of all, he seems to view it as a collective bargaining issue. Now, Madam Speaker, what happens to those individuals who do not have a union? What happens? Is he suggesting that everyone in the province should be a member of a union? I am a strong supporter of the labour movement, but I do not think even I would go that far. I think it is a matter of choice of the individual workers.
But let us deal with that. Let us deal with the argument of the minister. That was not dealt with by collective bargaining, according to the minister. Well, how about minimum wages, Madam Speaker? Perhaps we do not need minimum wage laws if we use the logic of the minister, because that could be dealt with through collective bargaining. Employment standards, that could be dealt with through collective bargaining. Human rights legislation, that could be dealt with through collective bargaining. Regulations in terms of sexual harassment--well, surely, the minister who is a former Minister of Labour will understand that there are certain things that it has been decided by society, by legislatures, not just here in Manitoba, that there are certain issues that are fundamental when it comes to issues affecting working people.
One of the issues that the NDP government in the 1980s said was fundamental was pay equity. We said it was not something that should only be to the benefit of those who were part of a union. We said at that time, let us make it very clear, that it would be extended first to the public sector and then would be extended to the private sector. That was very clearly stated at the beginning of the debate on pay equity.
Why did we say that, Madam Speaker? [interjection] Not to control the time for the member for River Hieghts (Mr. Radcliffe)--maybe the member for River Heights would have listened to the speech by the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), who pointed to the fact that women make less than 70 cents for every dollar that is made by men in society, and I asked at the time that we brought in pay equity legislation, if you had pay equity legislation, would that eliminate all the inequality? It would not, but the difference would be 90 cents on the dollar, not 70 cents.
It has been well documented that women who work in female-dominated classes of employment receive less pay than men, and I have seen it myself. I have seen before where male caretakers, you know, with the word "caretaker" being used, make more than female janitorial staff, doing the same thing for the same employer, the same type of work.
Those are some of the kinds of issues that are dealt with in terms of pay equity, but we have also seen--and if anybody just looks at any of the statistics and looks at the reality of the workplace, Madam Speaker, many of the kinds of employment that are undertaken by women in female-dominated classes are traditionally undervalued in society. That is why women on average make less than 70 cents compared to men.
Now, I ask you, Madam Speaker, and I ask anybody to answer the question whether they feel that is not fundamental to society. You know, we have a Charter of Rights that guarantees equality and includes equality based on gender.
We have, I am sure, in this Legislature and in Canada as a whole made many strides towards implementing equality. But can we accept a situation in which women do not have one of the most fundamental equalities, to my mind, which is equality of treatment in the workplace, equality of treatment when it comes to probably the most fundamental aspect of working, and that is remuneration?
That is why the NDP government in the 1980s took the courageous step of being the first jurisdiction in Canada to bring in legislated pay equity in the public sector.
It is interesting to note that as is the case with many of the progressive reforms brought in by NDP governments, everything from medicare in Saskatchewan to many of the improvements that have been brought through in this province, within a matter of years that course was followed in other jurisdictions as well.
We also said at the time that the next step was pay equity in the private sector. We believed, and we said at the time, and it has been proven.
The minister talked about Ontario. You know, there were a lot of issues discussed in the election campaign in Ontario, but one of them was not pay equity in the private sector. Never once did that become a significant issue in that province, because the interesting thing is, often some of the private employers who the minister seems to feel and others seem to feel could not implement pay equity have often the mechanisms already in place to do that.
Inco in Thompson has CWS analysis, which uses analysis of pay scales, which is very similar to the kind of system that was used by the pay equity system. One of the reasons we established pay equity in the public sector was to show that it works, was to develop the expertise.
One of the saddest things was when this government eliminated the pay equity office because, when you sit down with people, sit down with employers and employees and explain what is involved with pay equity, there are two interesting things that you find. First of all, any analysis of public opinion will show you that 80 to 90 percent of people support pay equity. When you sit down and you ask them, is this fair or unfair, they will say it is unfair that women who work in female-dominated classes of employment should be paid less than the men doing the same kind of work, the same value of work.
But the second thing is, they not only agree with it but, when you explain how it has been implemented and sit down and work through it, as has happened in not just the narrower public sector but also Crown corporations, it becomes quite a simple process of working through with the system.
* (1740)
That is why it was a shame when that office was eliminated, because there are many employers in this province that I believe could, short of legislation, bring in this with the assistance of an experienced pay equity office established by the government, could bring it in voluntarily.
But the problem here is, I would suggest to you, if you analyze the statements made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), that this government is no different, this party is no different in government than it was in opposition. They really do not believe in the concept of pay equity at least as far as its being an important social objective. You know, in opposition, they were more clear about their agenda. I do not think they agree with pay equity, period. Despite all the window dressing of the former Minister of Labour, they do not agree with pay equity, that is not a concern for them. The bottom line is, with this government in power, this type of government, we will never see it in the private sector.
Madam Speaker, where does that leave us? It leaves us with the one and only party that has ever raised this issue in this province and other provinces raising this issue once again.
You know the sad part is that the difference between men and women in the public sector--by the way, I do not agree with the minister when he suggests that public-sector workers are overpaid compared to private-sector workers. Perhaps he would like to explain that to Highways mechanics who quit the public sector in Thompson to go work at Inco, including one person who was a supervisor and is now getting paid $5 an hour more to go work at Inco as a first-level mechanic. Perhaps he would care to look at other people who are finding, thanks to governments such as his government and Bill 22 and Bill 70 and wage freezes over the years, that public-sector workers are not necessarily paid more than private-sector workers. I think he should be very careful of those kind of comments.
The sad part is that the biggest difference between men and women is in the private sector. The public sector, by and large, was far more equal, there was far less of a gap to bridge.
I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that what the Conservative government is essentially saying, by their actions on this resolution, by opposing clearly from the minister's comments the impact of this resolution, is that it is willing to accept women receiving far less in the way of wages than they should. They do not believe in equal pay for work of equal value, which is essentially what pay equity is.
You know the sad part is this impacts in other ways. This is a province with a high level of poverty and a high level of child poverty. As the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) pointed out in her speech, there has been an phenomenon in the last 25 years which has been described as the feminization of poverty. It used to be the majority of people in poverty were men 25 years ago, but now the majority of people in poverty are women. We see that in this province.
I see personally many single parents, for example, single families headed by women, where I see people struggling to make ends meet. I do not know how anyone, even this Conservative government which does not have much sympathy for these type of issues, can go to people in that circumstance and say, blame your union, go get it collectively bargained, how they could justify if they perhaps, and I hope they still do, accept having legislation on employment standards, whether it be for minimum wages or basic working conditions, how they can say to the single parent, the many women who are struggling to get by, when many of the women are not being paid what they should be paid according to any sense of fairness, that they do not support moving ahead with pay equity beyond the public sector, where it has worked successfully into the private sector.
I think we can work together in this province. We are a small province with one million people. I think if we have a commitment from government, we can bring in pay equity. Yes, with some legislation involved, but largely through the co-operation of employers and employees in this province, whether they be unionized or nonunionized. I have a lot more faith, Madam Speaker, in that I think than the Conservatives opposite. They are the same ones who did not believe it would happen when we brought it in the public sector. They continue to this day to deny the fact that there is real potential to move ahead and advance the true economic equality of women, and that is a real shame because I say on this particular resolution, I fully support the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford). I fully support her, and our caucus does, on this resolution because we will not stop until there is nothing short of full equality for women in the province of Manitoba. That means, yes, to pay equity in the public and, yes, to pay equity in the private sector. Thank you.
Mr. Mike Radcliffe (River Heights): Madam Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak to this resolution, because I think that there has been a lot of confusion in thought in this Chamber this afternoon on this issue.
The concept of pay equity is a tool for evaluating labour in labour negotiations. This government stands for the freedom of parties in labour negotiations without government interference. It is essential in the marketplace that parties continue to negotiate, to bargain in the labour field, without the heavy hand of government coming down upon them.
If this resolution were to be passed and if it were to be impacted on the private sector, if it were to be extended with the violence of the Crown, then undeniably the whole free flow of the marketplace would be skewed, and it would have incredible effects on the market, which would go only to defeat the very issues that the honourable members across the floor are trying to advocate.
They are trying to weave in the issues of poverty into this concept, into this system. With the greatest of respect, the whole concept of gender or equal pay for equal work--[interjection] The honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) is trying to indicate to me that women are poor. Yes, there are some women in this country who are poor, and there are some men in this country who are poor. There is poverty in this country, but the only way that we are going to remedy poverty is to allow the free flow of the marketplace to allow individuals and groups of individuals to bargain freely for wages.
The only way that we are to going to remedy poverty in this country is if we create an environment where jobs will flow out of the marketplace. We are proud to show that just in this past several weeks, we have brought, this government has brought, jobs into the Manitoba marketplace.
An Honourable Member: 14,000 more.
Mr. Radcliffe: 14,000 jobs, which is an admirable record.
However, I think that, as one is addressing the points raised in this resolution, one must look at the background which was raised. One of the speakers to this resolution was trying to imply, trying to say, or did say that one of the prior speakers was inconsistent with their application.
The honourable Minister for Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik), who was speaking to this issue, was pointing out that there was a selective application of this concept back in 1985 when it was put into effect. There were 23 large health care facilities. This was a selective discriminatory application of this concept in to the marketplace. Why was that, Madam Speaker? Well, because it was a very complex issue. It was an issue which the government of that day, I would suggest, found itself unable to apply it across the board because it was going to have such draconian and dramatic effects on the marketplace.
If pay equity were considered and addressed as a tool, as a bargaining tool--and I believe the previous speaker said that, in fact, in his observation of the marketplace that it had been in labour negotiations--then that has some merit, that has some application. But to have the government impose it on the private sector, to have the government, the violence of the Crown, impose it today even in the public sector is totally unrealistic.
Madam Speaker, we hear every day of how government is downsizing, how the public sector is downsizing, how we are faced with fewer and fewer dollars and there are more people chasing fewer dollars and fewer jobs. Is it not better to have more people employed, have more people having the dignity of work, rather than trying to create a selective, elitist group that do not have any responsibility to the market?
* (1750)
We are looking now and the public sector people in the health field who have just taken a rollback in wages, this is the reality that we are facing. The application of pay equity--as we heard from a previous speaker--caused only an increase in wages. There was no reciprocating downscaling in this legislation when the previous government brought this concept in to play, and this shows the true aspect of what they were trying to do. They were trying only to use it as an additional tool to crank up the inflationary wage spiral that the economy was suffering.
Madam Speaker, there is another concept which I believe must be addressed that if the government is to apply pay equity and force it on to the market, we can parallel that or we can analogize that to the economy that was in place in Soviet Russia, a centralized, top-down, arbitrary economy which becomes totally out of control, totally unrealistic, totally unrelated to the actual moving forces of the market.
We all have seen what happened to the Soviet economy. We have all seen what happened to the economy in eastern Europe. It fell through the weight of its own insurmountable top-heavy bureaucracy and if pay equity were forced in to the market by government--and that has to be the essential point--that this resolution is suggesting, then the net effect would be that we would go the way of the dodo. Our economy would go the way of the Soviet economy, and it would collapse upon itself.
Madam Speaker, this is an insidious resolution. This is a dangerous resolution. It is going against the free flow of the marketplace. One of the underlying concepts of labour bargaining is the value of seniority. Now, this concept of pay equity is at direct odds to the concept of rewarding seniority.
Madam Speaker, this concept, if it were being enforced, would not even be consistent with the actual concepts. One of the other concepts or points that I think is very significant is that the prior speakers on this point of pay equity were trying to relate it to gender inequalities. We have passed legislation, and this government strongly, vigorously endorses equality of the genders. We vigorously endorse equal pay for equal work, but we cannot have this bargaining tool, this evaluation concept forced into the private marketplace or even extended into the public marketplace so that the effect would be to drive up the wages in the economy.
We have all been told how the federal government, the Liberal government in Ottawa, is wrenching $220 million out of the hands of the provincial government. It is devastating.
Are we then going to have an inflationary force loose on the economy of Manitoba? This makes no sense at all and, in fact, that is why this resolution as it is framed must be defeated.
Madam Speaker, it makes no sense at all. If this resolution were adopted, it would only succeed in artificially skewing, artificially manipulating the free marketplace of Manitoba.
The real issue here that we are trying to address is poverty. If we are to address and cure or attack poverty in our province, the way to do that is to create an environment where there is stable taxation, no increase in taxes. There has to be a climate where people will want to come to Manitoba to do business, to raise a family, to work in Manitoba and, Madam Speaker, that is the only way that we are going to attack the evils of poverty.
We are not going to be able to attack the evils of poverty with artificial, top-down, artificially manipulated concepts and tools which are heavy-handedly imposed on the private workforce by government.
One of the prior speakers, Madam Speaker, addressed the issue of the concept of employees working in the public milieu rather than in the private milieu, and I can attest, having been a private employer, that it is exceedingly difficult to try and compete in this city with the public employer.
The benefits that are available to public employees, the wage level that is offered by the government of Manitoba, I can attest personally takes secretaries out of the private workforce.
I ran a small law firm, Madam Speaker, and I can tell this Assembly today that we had employees who would come to us and say that they enjoyed working in our environment, but when they were being offered 10, 15, 20 percent higher wages in the public sector, then there was no way that we could compete, and we lost employee after employee after employee because the wages in the public sector were significantly higher. It is a monolith.
Madam Speaker, the only way that poverty is going to be defeated in this province is if there are more jobs, and the only way that there are going to be more jobs is if we can keep the taxes down, keep the type of environment where people want to do business, where people want to come to Manitoba and create opportunity, increase trade.
That is why this resolution, with the greatest of respect to my honourable friend, does not address the issues to which she was making reference in her initial address. [interjection] What would my local councillor say? I believe that the councillor for River Heights in the municipal election has addressed this issue and has addressed it very vigorously. He has been a private businessman and has been aware of the forces that really are the true forces that give play to real jobs in Manitoba and, for these reasons, I must urge this Chamber to defeat this motion.
I thank you very much for the opportunity of addressing this issue today. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).