PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS

Res. 12--Improved Benefits for Part-Time Employees

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Wolseley, that:

WHEREAS in the last 15 years economic, technological and social influences have created significant changes in the workplace and within the workforce presenting difficulties for both employees and employers; and

WHEREAS between 19 and 20 percent of Manitoba's workforce is employed part time; and

WHEREAS most of the approximately 96,000 part-time workers do not enjoy the same benefits as their co-workers who work full time; and

WHEREAS in today's economy two-income earner families and single-parent families are the rule rather than the exception; and

WHEREAS there is a need to create a better balance between part-time and full-time worker benefits.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba call on the provincial government to consider introducing legislation amending The Employment Standards Act to provide for prorated benefits for part-time employees including prorated sick leave, pensions, termination rights and vacation.

Motion presented.

Mr. Reid: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise once again to sponsor this particular resolution. I know this resolution has, in some way, some form, been before the House in years past wherein I believe in the first year that this was introduced by my Leader, the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer). It was my pleasure last session and again this session to introduce this legislation hoping that we can, at this time, convince the provincial government that there is a need in this province to bring forward amendments to The Employment Standards Act in this province that would allow for the government to bring forward changes to that act that would allow for fair benefits for people who are working in part-time jobs.

I am looking back, Madam Speaker, at some of the comments that have been made in the past by members who have spoken on this bill and they have referenced legislation in other jurisdictions. Yes, it is true that in the province of B.C. there was some comment, some studies done with respect to similar types of resolutions to move towards benefits for individuals who are working in part-time jobs and that the government, at that time, chose not to move forward with that legislation. Of course, there was different circumstances in that province than I believe occur in the province of Manitoba. So they have a different set of conditions that would affect their workforce other than what Manitoba has.

Now, at that time, the members opposite when we were debating this resolution last session, referenced the fact that Saskatchewan had brought forward similar legislation. They had, indeed, commenced by way of a study in 1994 looking at ways where they could improve the working conditions for working people in the province of Saskatchewan and that the government sensed that there was a real need on the part of people who were working in part-time employment to have the opportunity to have their benefits prorated so that they would have at least a part of the advantage or the opportunities given to them as were available to those who were working on a full-time basis.

Now I look at some of the headlines that came out of the province of Saskatchewan at that time and it says, Saskatchewan labour laws spark fury. Well, I think what has happened since that time is that there was, no doubt, some fury that was trying to be generated or raised by members of the business community. I look at some of the names that were signed calling on the Minister of Labour and the government of Saskatchewan not to take this step at that time. It involved the Federation of Independent Business and the Restaurant and Food Services Association, Chambers of Commerce, construction associations, homebuilders, association of taxpayers, et cetera. So there were a number of the self-interest groups, the special interest groups that came forward, that the government so often references as not wanting to influence any decisions. I hope that this government will not be influenced in any way through their legislation by these special interest groups that I have mentioned here in some of the legislation that this government has brought forward, but I guess we will have to find that out as we move along through that debate. I see that since that time the Province of Saskatchewan has moved forward with their benefits, fair benefits for their part-time workers in that province, and has in fact legislation now in effect in the province of Saskatchewan.

The government of Saskatchewan has brought this in in a way that would allow for medium and large companies to pay all of their part-time employees benefits that involve areas that are basic human services, that I think that every family and every working person should have some entitlement to if that benefit is also provided to full-time employees of that particular company. I am referencing, in particular, primary medical and dental and life insurance benefits that should be considered to be given to part-time employees, but that list should not be limited to those particular areas.

The resolution that we have brought forward here references sick leave, pensions, termination rights and vacation, but there are also other areas where there are benefits that should be considered to be in a sense prorated between those that are working full time and those that are part time, that the full time obviously having some of those benefits and the part-time people that do not.

They should also include areas that would involve protection for transportation to medical facilities by ambulance, perhaps a semi-private hospital. Definitely, dental should be involved; there is no doubt in my mind--and parental leave. I mean, there are many areas to which full-time employees have opportunity to utilize benefits or for the protection of their families. These benefits are in place, either negotiated through unions with the employer or by the company providing these benefits to the employees in nonunion situations.

I remember the last time we were debating this bill, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) said that the employee should go out through their unions and negotiate these rights, but he failed to mention the fairly large portion of our population that is not working in union environments, shops where unions represent them in the workplace. Therefore, there is a large segment of our population that does not have that opportunity to have that representation made on their behalf.

Now we should take a look, too, and I draw it to the minister's attention, the government's attention that there are a large number of families in our province, not just in the city of Winnipeg or the other major centres, but in the province that are working at two, three and sometimes four jobs to try and support the family. I have had the opportunity over the last number of years to canvass, not only in my own community but to canvass in some of the communities for members of this province. [interjection] Yes, indeed, I was canvassing in the constituency of The Maples this year.

I can tell the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) that his constituents, as they have told him no doubt, have told me that they are quite concerned that they are working at two, three and four jobs to try and support their families. Their spouses, their partners are also out working in the workforce at jobs that do not have benefits and quite often pay at or close to the minimum wage; therefore, in a large way, it prevents these families from going out and purchasing the necessary protection, whether it be life insurance or a semi-private hospital or dental plans, because they do not have the financial wherewithal to undertake that activity.

One of the things that concerns me is that we have in this province, and the numbers, the statistics seem to bear this out over the long term, we have a number of our companies that if you just take a look at the number of people that are in this province and if you take a look from 1983 to 1996, we have seen a significant change in the total number of people that have gone from--in the area of full-time employment that number has decreased in the percentage of the numbers that are employed. If you take a look at the number of part-time people during that same time frame, the percentage of those that are employed in the workforce, the number of part-time people has increased significantly in the province of Manitoba.

* (1640)

Now I have witnessed this in my own community where we have people that are telling me that they have unfortunately, through circumstances in our economy, been laid off by their employer and have had to go out and seek other employment, and if they are successful in finding other employment, they have indicated that it is more times than not with little or no benefits associated to it. So therefore the families have to suffer the consequences of having the loss of the benefits that had been previously available through full-time employment.

So what we are asking by way of this resolution is for the government to consider that there is a significant portion of our population that is disadvantaged in that they are not able to attain for themselves and for their families through their employment because they are working part time and because the employers do not currently allow for and provide for the fairness or balance between the part-time and the full-time employees. I have had the opportunity to talk with people in private-sector industries that tell me--in particular, it is a food chain, one of the large food chains in the province here that also operates in other provinces of Canada--that they have their employees that are supposed to be full time, but the company keeps reducing the hours of those employees down to the point where they are having minimal number of hours a week.

So their incomes are significantly impacted, but at the same time, these employees do not have the opportunity to have the benefits associated with that because of the reduction in their hours.

I am also led to believe and understand that there are employees working in our own government Crown corporations that are working in part-time jobs that do not have the entitlement to the vital benefits that full-time employees are entitled to. To me that strikes an unfairness. It is unfair that the people that would perhaps be working in these Crown corporations as full-time employees would be entitled to a wide range of benefits; yet, in the same Crown corporation, we would have employees that would be working part time and have no entitlement to any of those benefits. To me that strikes at the heart of the fairness issue and that there needs to be some balance in there to restore the fairness.

One of the things that I found in canvassing in the constituencies throughout the city of Winnipeg and elsewhere in this province in my travels was that I have encountered people that come from all walks of life and from every political stripe is that even members of the public that support the government's position on a wide-ranging number of issues want to see changes to The Employment Standards Act because they have themselves or their children that are immediately impacted upon entering the workforce where they do not have entitlement to that, not only are they concerned that the minimum wage of the province is too low to allow their children to sustain themselves upon leaving the family home, but the benefits are not there to allow the young people entering the workforce to sustain themselves in a way that would not also create a burden or a hardship for the family. So I draw it to the government's attention that there are people that even support them that think that the government should be moving towards changes in The Employment Standards Act that would allow for benefits on a prorated basis for part-time work.

Now one of the things that I know I have suggested before, Madam Speaker, as had occurred in the province of Saskatchewan, which I think has some room for merit, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), through the tools that are available to him, can take this matter with the support of the House, hopefully, and refer this matter to the Labour Management Review commission and that the government, by way of that, could spell out the mandate for investigation, that the government wants to undertake a review of this matter, and let the business community and the labour community come forward with their ideas on a way that can be constructed that we can improve The Employment Standards Act of this province with respect to these prorated benefits for part-time workers.

I think that is a fair way if the government does not want to accept at face value what we are telling them here today. Put the question to the LMRC and let them decide. Let them go out and hold public hearings, let them talk to the business community, let them talk to the labour community, and let them talk to the public by way of general public meetings to find out the public's impression of this issue and where they would like to see changes, if the government does not want to accept our word at face value. That way we could find out that there is indeed a willingness on the part of the public to move in this direction and that we have every right to move into area.

So I hope that the government will take a look at the increasing number of part-time workers that are happening in this province, looking at the historical comparison over at least a decade, over a decade now, where the economy of our province is moving toward more part-time work versus full-time and that the government will look seriously and consider very seriously this resolution, not that it will disadvantage employers because I think employers have been, judging the Saskatchewan experience and for all the furor that was created around that issue when it was changed in 1994, it has not impacted seriously on the economy of the province of Saskatchewan. Their unemployment level is the lowest in Canada, something which I am sure they are proud of, and the labour legislation changes to allow for prorated benefits has not in any way, in any shape, affected the unemployment rate in the province of Saskatchewan. In fact, they have more people working today than they had when that proposition or proposal first came forward in 1994.

So I hope that the government will consider very seriously this resolution, that we can have support from members of this Chamber for this resolution, that we can encourage the government to take this matter to the LMRC, and that we will have the support of members of this House.

Thank you for the opportunity to raise this resolution, Madam Speaker, and I look forward to other speakers here today.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): The motion brought forward by the MLA for Transcona (Mr. Reid) is similar to the one brought before the House last year. There was no basis, Madam Speaker, for recommending it at that time, and there certainly is none now, and why, the question might reasonably arise, I think is answered in two parts. Simply put, the recommendation, the motion, is unworkable, and as the experience in other provinces has shown, it creates hardships for part-time workers.

In examining this issue, Madam Speaker, I wish to look at what, in fact, has happened in the other provinces, the experiences that has arisen in respect of part-time workers and benefits for those workers. I think particularly we should examine the experience of the NDP governments in both Saskatchewan and British Columbia, and perhaps we can learn from the experience there and not have to reinvent the wheel here.

Firstly, though, let us take a look at the resolution itself, and the substantive portion states that: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba call on the provincial government to consider introducing legislation amending The Employment Standards Act to provide for prorated benefits for part-time employees, including prorated sick leave, pensions, termination rights and vacation.

* (1650)

Now, what in fact is the present status? With respect to legislative benefits, that is, those provided for in legislation, Manitoba Labour Standards laws presently provide for the extension or prorating of benefits to part-time employees. These include laws relating to vacation, termination rights and maternity and paternal leave. With respect to nonlegislated benefits such as sick leave, dental care and disability insurance, Manitoba laws and the laws of all other Canadian provinces, other than Saskatchewan, do not provide for the prorating of benefits for part-time employees. I will, Madam Speaker, deal with the Saskatchewan experience and find out in fact what has happened in Saskatchewan.

I would like to point out also that under the Manitoba Pension Benefits Act, part-time employees are required to become members of pension plans after completing two years of employment service and earning at least 25 percent of the maximum pensionable earnings as determined each year by the CPP in each of two consecutive calendar years of service. So there certainly are legislated requirements, and I think reasonable and practical solutions have been found in those areas.

The areas that have been recommended by the MLA for Transcona (Mr. Reid) have been dealt with and discussed in some of the other provinces, and perhaps I should turn to those at the present time. I would once again remind the members in the House that in 1994, in February, the Thompson report was released with over 100 recommendations being forwarded to the Minister of Labour in British Columbia, which was essentially an extensive review of employment standards legislation in British Columbia.

One of the recommendations was that employees who work 15 hours or more a week for an employer continuously for six months or more should be eligible for proportionate coverage by all nonstatutory fringe benefits available to full-time employees with the exception of pensions--and the pension is regulated slightly differently in British Columbia. At that time, concerns were raised with respect to the recommendations in the report, specifically in respect of the extension of full-time benefits to part-time workers on a prorated basis. It was indicated to the British Columbia government at that time that the recommendation, if proceeded with, could in fact cause a dramatic slowdown in the hiring of people and in some cases create actual job loss. So there were very serious concerns about the very detrimental effects that this legislation would have on the people that it was in fact intended to protect.

Now, in November of '94 and February of '95, the British Columbia Ministry of Labour indicated that it would not be proceeding with a number of the Thompson recommendations, including the extension of the full-time benefits on a prorated basis to part-time workers. The following reasons were given. The government of British Columbia indicated that the recommendations in that respect, which recommendation in fact forms the substance of this motion before the House today, were felt to be unworkable or unfair. The government presented then a package which they felt would be fair. The B.C. Ministry of Labour indicated that the fringe benefits extension as recommended by the Thompson report which also forms the basis of this motion, would not be proceeded with by the government due to its unworkability.

Now, in Saskatchewan, it is important to point out, yes, the Saskatchewan government in fact recently--and this is well over a year ago--enacted amendments to provide for the prorating of these, if I could call them, nonlegislated benefits for part-time workers. The provisions were to apply to employees who are employed on average 15 hours or more per week by employers with 10 or more workers. Essentially, the benefits that they were to provide and the impact of that law essentially resulted in the fact that only 7 percent of all part-time employees are covered. They found that the recommendation, the original broad recommendation, to cover 100 percent of these workers simply was not practical.

It was unworkable and, in fact, created a tremendous hardship on these workers. The reason it created a tremendous hardship--and this is from the Saskatchewan government, Madam Speaker--what in fact happened was that employers who were then faced with an administratively unworkable scheme said, well, then 15 hours is the minimum that they have to work. Employers then unilaterally reduced the hours of their workers that, in fact, resulted in a situation where workers, instead of having one or two part-time jobs, now had to go out and find another part-time job. So they were working with three part-time jobs, with three different employers instead of getting the maximum possible hours that they could get with one employer. So there was a tremendous difficulty and a hardship done to these employees by well-intentioned but misguided legislators in Saskatchewan.

What I would suggest for this House, rather than to adopt this resolution, is to continue to improve those systems that in fact are workable. Clearly, in the area of vacations, in the area of termination rights, maternity and paternal leave, where there are improvements administratively or otherwise that can be done, let us take a look at those, but simply to pass laws in a blanket fashion which work detrimentally to these workers is not in the best interests of these workers. So I feel that in the review of legislation, which is an ongoing review--and I have indicated to this House before that The Employment Standards legislation here in Manitoba needs to be improved on an administrative basis. I think in the course of looking at the very separate pieces of legislation which are often contradictory and often confusing for part-time workers, full-time workers and employers, especially people who cannot have easy access to legal help or sophisticated labour relations people, what we have to do is clarify the existing laws and ensure that wherever possible we can administratively improve those laws. Those laws, I think, will create a tremendous benefit. Rather than creating more administrative work for employers, the streamlining of the legislation will assist employers in focusing on creating business rather than filling out more forms and paperwork such as the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) seems to suggest is the solution here.

The suggestion, the resolution would indeed be welcomed I am sure by large insurance companies who would see quite a bit of benefit in the member for Transcona's solution because it would be very, very complex. These large insurance companies have the workforce to do that, but the tremendous cost of something like that would not be in the best interest of small business, would not be in the best interest of part-time workers and would not be in the best interest of Manitoba generally.

Madam Speaker, we have moved in various areas to simplify and encourage employers to provide protection to their employees. One of these is the simplified pension plans that we are now offering here in the province of Manitoba which rather than discouraging employers because of the onerous paperwork requirements, we have maintained the security of the pension system and reduced the paperwork so that employers can in fact offer these new improved pension plans to small businesses. That, in fact, is the way to proceed. Simplify things. Simplify the paperwork and deal with benefits that in fact are obtainable, benefits that will in fact protect the small worker, not simply create an administrative boondoggle that only large insurance companies could afford to do and then pass on that cost to small employers who in fact are--

An Honourable Member: Surely the honourable member is not suggesting support for the big insurance companies.

Mr. Toews: Well, unfortunately that is exactly what the resolution does, simply creates more support for large corporations at the expense of the backbone of small business here in Manitoba. I think that is what our concern has got to be in every piece of legislation, the individual person who is affected by legislation. Members opposite simply see the protection of institutions. That is what they are all about. I think the focus of legislation should be first and foremost the protection of individual people so that they can produce and be productive members of society without simply having to always rely on large institutions or large organizations to direct their lives and to complicate their lives with paperwork. People want a measure of freedom in that respect, and we want to ensure that they receive that with the appropriate safeguards. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

* (1700)

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and put a few remarks on the record in support of this very important resolution. I want to take a broad view of what I think members opposite may even agree is indeed happening in our economy. A few years back, roughly a decade or so, the American multinationals and American large companies began the process of de-layering and outsourcing, and all the good words, which basically mean that job security for a great number of people began to erode severely. Now, it is interesting that over the last approximately year and a half, there has arisen a good deal of data from sound sources in the, what even might be sources that Conservatives opposite would think of as conservative, that indicates that this was a bankrupt strategy. Yes, profits went up, but effectiveness of the corporations did not always go up.

We are now hearing from people as desperate as Jeff Rubin, who is the senior economist of Wood Gundy, that Canada's policy of interest rates has cost us a huge number of jobs. We are hearing from David Olive, the editor of the Report on Business, that the insecurity amongst workers is extremely destructive of family life, very destructive of worker morale, that companies that have been outsourced, to use the jargon, find that the productivity and morale of the remaining workers decline and that they are very fearful. They are fearful of taking risks, which is what entrepreneurs are supposed to want people to do is to take risks, to engage in experimental kinds of behaviour, find out how to do new things. If you are afraid for your job every day of your life and every minute of the working day, you are not likely to be taking very many risks.

Madam Speaker, I think that the government opposite, the members opposite, are rather like that old problem we have with generals. They are forever fighting the last war instead of recognizing that the new reality is indeed that workers do change their jobs frequently. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but if workers are forced to do so without any protection of reasonable expectations such as pensions, insurance of various kinds, health insurance, the various things that make our ability to plan for our family simply greater, we cannot plan for any kind of security of our major purchases such as houses or cars if we have no job security and have no benefit security.

Now this proposal takes a very reasonable approach and suggests that we start and work at this question. It is not suggesting that we immediately implement changes tomorrow but rather that we work at it, that we have a dialogue with the business community and the labour community and find out how we can improve the sense of security, the sense of possibility that workers have even though they are working too many part-time jobs. I recognize, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) has pointed out, that if businesses are given the opportunity, all too often they simply change their ground rules in order to evade responsibilities to pay adequate benefits. So that simply means that the implementation process for this legislation and any program that it causes to come into being has to be intelligent and thoughtful implementation. Companies have to be deterred from simply finding ways to evade what is a reasonable responsibility.

Madam Speaker, the whole issue of benefits for part-time people is a really interesting question. Conservatives opposite supported the Fox-Decent commission. They supported the ability of themselves to contribute to a pension plan up to 7 percent of their income. It is really interesting to ask, if that is a good idea for them, I wonder why it is not a good idea for someone working 20 hours a week at two different part-time jobs. Workers who work in this building in this House believe that it is somehow a good idea that they should be able to purchase extended health insurance, they should be able to have dental benefits. But they appear to be arguing that people who work full time but do so at a combination of jobs should not have the same ability, that there should not be statutory protection to enable those families to enjoy the benefits that members opposite and members on this side of the House enjoy as a matter of right. So again we have a situation in which Conservatives talk the talk, but they do not walk it. They are not prepared to support low-income people or people who have several part-time jobs to have the sense of security in their families that they can make intelligent consumer decisions, that they can have a stake in their community through home ownership, that they are not afraid to take the risk of being into new kinds of work situations, of moving as their skills and careers enable them to move, because they know that they are going to be insured at a level that is reasonable and humane, and which workers who are sitting on these benches opposite take for granted.

They would be incensed if we suggested to them that because they only sit for 20 weeks of the year, less than half time, why in the world should they be entitled to health benefits? I mean, they are only sitting there half time, or less than that. Why should we give you health benefits? Why should we let you have a pension? Well, you make the argument that you do other things outside the House, and you do other work, so maybe it is more than half time.

An Honourable Member: Do you not?

Mr. Sale: Absolutely, and that is precisely why I would say that any worker who works any significant number of hours at a job--and I will not define it as 20 or 15, but any significant number of hours--should have the right and the ability to be protected to the same degree proportionately as the members opposite, who take such delight in trashing this very important resolution.

Madam Speaker, if we are going to move into the new world of jobs that the members opposite are so keen to have us do, we have to move into it in a way that is humane but protects the ability of families to protect themselves. That is what this resolution does, and I am pleased to rise in support of it.

Mr. Mike Radcliffe (River Heights): I would like to take this opportunity to place a few comments on the record with regard to this resolution as well. My honourable colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) has commented that this social experiment, this social engineering, this top-down patriarchal attitude was tried in the jurisdictions to the west of us, namely, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Do you know what happened, Madam Speaker? Those jurisdictions very quickly realized the inanity of this sort of social engineering, and the Province of Saskatchewan withdrew from this issue--sorry, the jurisdiction of British Columbia withdrew from this social engineering. The jurisdiction of Saskatchewan made it applicable only to 7 percent to 8 percent of the working population.

Point of Order

Mr. Sale: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the government of Saskatchewan implemented the legislation for medium and large companies. They did not withdraw. I wish the honourable member would stick to the facts in his remarks.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Crescentwood does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

* * *

* (1710)

Mr. Radcliffe: I hear my colleague, and I would amend my remarks. I stand corrected that in fact the jurisdiction of Saskatchewan limited the application of this law to a small, elect, select few.

Now, Madam Speaker, we heard the Honourable Kim Campbell, an outstanding Canadian, who spoke out a number of years ago--[interjection] Absolutely, and my honourable colleague from Niakwa joins me in this commendation. The Honourable Ms. Campbell stated that our economy has changed, and our honourable colleagues across the way here are stuck in the past. They refuse to move with the times. They are dinosaurs. They are intellectually atrophied. There is significant crystallization of thought on the other side, which is intellectual atrophy. What has happened here, the Honourable Ms. Campbell told us, told the whole nation, is that the assembly-line mentality is defunct, that time has passed. In fact, we are moving into a service orientation, we are moving into a new world of information, and the rules and the skills and the resources of the '40s and the '30s are no longer applicable. Unfortunately and regrettably, our honourable colleagues on this side of the House have not moved with the times, they are stuck in a time warp.

Madam Speaker, is it preferable to be on welfare, such as many of the employees of Boeing are going to be faced because they drove this employer out of town, or do you move with the times? Do you acknowledge that the economy is changing? Far better that somebody have a job, that we create an environment where employers are going to want to do business in Manitoba, than the fact that we chase these large corporations out of the province and say, ah, we are going to be so pure and we are going to legislate in a patriarchal, centralized environment. Now, we saw in eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union what happened with that mentality. It became so top heavy and so layered that it collapsed upon itself.

We have to move with the times, and I am pleased to tell my honourable colleagues in this Chamber today that this government, in lieu of this intellectual atrophy, have pursued active business opportunities for the people of Manitoba so that there are jobs for the people out there. In fact, our government has gone out and we have solicited over $900 million of capital investment to come to Manitoba in the last year. That is astounding that people have that much confidence in our jurisdiction.

We have had, in the year 1995, the largest decline in unemployment in Manitoba in the last 30 years. Why? Is it because we are making more regulations, we are being more invasive of the people who create real wealth in Manitoba? Not so, Madam Speaker. We have balanced the budget. We have said that there is going to be a freeze on taxation. We have the most effective balanced budget legislation in the nation, and this has been acknowledged across the country. We have outstanding authorities, Lehmann Brothers of New York, in February 1996, and they state, assuming the province of Manitoba is able to stay the current fiscal course and continues to reduce the level of outstanding debt, we would not be surprised to see a rating upgrade over the course of the next year.

An Honourable Member: When was that said?

Mr. Radcliffe: That was February 1996, for the benefit of my honourable colleague from St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry).

Solomon Brothers, April 3, 1996: Manitoba's credit prospects continue to be favourable, reflecting a tradition of conservative fiscal policies, which has resulted in a significantly improved budgetary position. Although an upgrade may be 12 to 18 months away, an outlook revision to positive this year is warranted.

Madam Speaker, the bottom line is we need people to bring their money, to bring their capital to Manitoba to make more jobs. We do not need to cater to the union mentality that create their own little select mandarin oligarchy. Those are the people that are the mainstay and the support of our honourable colleagues on the other side. They are not interested in the farmers of the province of Manitoba.

I would ask my honourable colleague, are they rushing out to supply pensions for the farmers in Manitoba? I do not hear that. There seems to be a dearth of chatter across the House at this point on that issue, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, are they proposing that there should be pensions and health benefits for lawyers in the province of Manitoba? I do not hear any support for that element of society. [interjection] I hear some inane chatter coming from the back benches on the other side, but I would tend to try to weed that out as the nuisance comments which is the quality of input that we get from our honourable colleagues.

Madam Speaker, I would point out to my honourable colleagues in this Chamber that bankruptcies have fallen to the lowest level in 16 years in Manitoba, and there is a reason for that. It is because Manitobans are back to work. Manitobans are working for prosperity. They have jobs. We are not chasing people out of here. If we followed the empty rhetoric of our honourable colleagues on the other side, truly the last person out of the Chamber would be turning off the lights for the province. That is where that sort of intellectual pursuit leads us, and that is not where this government wants to go.

Indeed, Madam Speaker, I can look to Isobord Industries who have brought $120 million, proposing a $120-million commitment, to the people of Manitoba. J.M. Schneider, over $40 million, and that is going to create quality jobs for the people of Manitoba. This is the sort of expansion and growth that we want.

One has to consider and look at the proposal that our honourable colleague has put in the preamble. He is saying--I would suggest, or I could deduce from the preamble--that he wants to balance the part-timers with the full-timers, and yet he says that the 20 percent of Manitoba's workforce is part-time employed. So what conclusion do we draw, Madam Speaker? Is he trying to reduce all the workers to half-and-half? Is that what this solution is? I would suggest that the preamble is as ill founded in this resolution as the effect and the consequence. This resolution has not been well thought out.

Madam Speaker, there is another fundamental labour practice that he overlooks in this province. We have collective agreements in the labour force. If the collective agreements in our province incorporate these sorts of benefits, well, then, that is where there is freedom of the marketplace to establish this sort of level of emolument for our workers. [interjection]

I am saying that let the free market forces prevail, rather than having government mandate one more rule, one more regulation, one more cost of doing business. We all know, it is a well-known fact that the majority of wealth created in this province comes from small businesses. It is not government, it is not the mammoth labour unions, it is not the massive employers that create the majority of the wealth. It is the small-business man. If we make the environment so expensive that they cannot do business in Manitoba--

An Honourable Member: Deacon's Corner . . . .

Mr. Radcliffe: There you are, my honourable friend from Gladstone has quoted Deacon's Corner. Madam Speaker, that is the heartblood, that is the heartthrob of our province. He indicates that there are 43 employees at Deacon's Corner. That is the lifeblood of our province. That is what turns the wheel of wealth and industry, and that is where our future lies tomorrow, in the creative innovation of all our individual citizens.

An Honourable Member: Keep turning the wheel.

* (1720)

Mr. Radcliffe: Keep turning the wheel, that is right.

Now, Madam Speaker, I am told that much of our current legislation already provides for prorating of basic benefits to a number of our part-time workers, but for us to layer on additional legislation would be punitive, I would suggest, with the greatest of respect to our honourable colleagues across the way. A statement made by the B.C. Minister of Labour indicated that since fringe benefits were not mandatory for full-time workers under The Employment Standards Act, it raised a lot of questions as to how it was going to be applied. Is it our duty or our place here to be obfuscatory or ought we--[interjection] Obfuscatory, that is right. It is our duty here in this Chamber and as leaders of the legal community in Manitoba to be clear and concise.

One does not want to make more law. Better to leave the citizens of Manitoba the freedom to seek their own fortune to meet the changing demands of our economy, to say goodbye to the assembly line world of the '40s and the '50s, and I am not denying that those rules and those conditions were appropriate for those days and those times, but we are into a new economy. We are into a new environment, and so I join with the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) today in condemning this resolution absolutely. Indeed, you know, we raised the comment to my honourable colleague that all this would have the object or effect would be to build up the large insurance companies. I am sure that the large insurance companies would perhaps welcome the support from my honourable friend, but I do not think he has thought this resolution through because I would suggest, with the greatest of respect, that he may well be inimical to those interests in our society.

So I thank you very much for affording me the opportunity to put these few humble remarks on the record, to allow a little elucidation on this topic today, and I would hope that my colleagues would benefit from this small humble perspective that I would offer on this topic. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I do want to put a few remarks and I appreciate the opportunity to do so. I must admit that we are getting sort of chapter two of the member for River Heights' view of labour relations. We have already heard him express his view of such things as pay equity in this House, and now we are hearing it in terms of benefits for part-time employees.

You know, I always find it interesting when people lecture us about the new economy, because in a lot of cases usually the people that do are not in the position themselves of having to adapt to this so-called new economy, particularly in the part-time work, and I find it is very easy to sit back. I hear this all the time because nothing irritates people more than when they are in a part-time situation working on contracts and terms, then being lectured about the new economy.

I just want to deal with that for a second. Let us deal, for example, the impact of, say, legislated pay equity in the private sector or the impact of legislated benefits for part-time employees. Now, if you listen to this kind of Chicken Little argument from the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe), you know, if you strip away some of the words--and I just would remind the member that in this House he is not paid by the words, so he does not have to use those 50-cent words that our leader talks about. If you strip away, for a second--the argument of the member for River Heights is essentially, if you bring in legislated pay equity for workers, if you bring in legislated benefits for part-time workers, the sky will fall. We will lose jobs. We will kill the small business sector. We will destroy our economic growth.

Well, let us just take an example of two provinces, and let us see if that argument holds. Legislated pay equity in the private sector in Ontario, brought in by the NDP government, it has not been repealed. It is good legislation. By the way, Madam Speaker, if anybody doubts that there is not demand for that kind of legislation, I was approached by a number of employees from Inco, who were not represented by a union, who are very concerned, women who are concerned about the fact there is no pay equity and that they are discriminated against in many working situations by their employer. Do you know what? They said, when are we going to get the same kind of legislation as Ontario has? What is interesting, though, compared to Ontario, where they have this legislated pay equity, what is the situation there? It has not affected jobs and job creation, either under the NDP government or under the Ontario Conservative Party. It just does not wash.

Well, let us take the issue of legislated benefits for part-time employees. Can we make a comparison? Yes, Madam Speaker, we can with Saskatchewan. Look at what has happened in Saskatchewan since they brought in legislated benefits for part-time employees. Has it destroyed employment in that province? No, it is doing tremendously well. It has had some of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. I would say it is, in fact, just look at it. They are doing better than the province of Manitoba. I mean, if you want to make the argument, the sky will fall, it only works when you do not have someone who can appoint to Saskatchewan or Ontario where that has not happened.

I want to say that I would suggest to you that the member for River Heights does not have enough confidence in a lot of the employers in this province because I think anyone can recognize there are some very great inequities for part-time employees, and the member should be aware of that in terms of their conditions, in terms of benefits, et cetera. We are not talking about imposing some of the tremendous benefits that employees have gained through the collective bargaining process. We are not talking about that level of benefits, although I find it interesting that in a way the reverse of the argument from the member for River Heights really is, if you read his speech, I would say it was an encouragement to go out and sign a collective agreement and get the union fighting for you.

That is what his argument is. It is sort of this argument that we should not legislate; we should leave it to the collective bargaining process. Well, I might have a little more faith in that if the same party was not trying to do its utmost to make the ability of unions to organize and workers to be under a collective agreement more difficult. If it was not for the other piece of labour legislation, I might believe it, but is the member for River Heights saying that only unionized workers should have those kinds of benefits? Madam Speaker, I am amazed, from a conservative perspective, to hear the member for River Heights. Basically, that is the bottom line of his argument. He is saying, well, we should not legislate it; we should not cover everyone. Only those who are unionized and have it in their collective agreement should have access to that. Well, you know, that is what he said, and I wonder if the--maybe I will quote the member for River Heights. Maybe I will even send it out to some of the unions. I can just imagine, he may appear in some of their organizing leaflets, saying that if you want to get benefits in Manitoba, the MLA for River Heights says, join a union.

Well, that is interesting, but do you know what? This may sound strange to members opposite--and I have been a strong supporter of the labour movement. I am a strong supporter of the right of working people to collective bargaining, to organize. I am a strong supporter of that, but do you know what? There are a lot of people in this province who are not going to sign a union card tomorrow. There are a lot of people who may not choose at any point in time to be represented by a union. That is part of the democratic process that goes into collective bargaining and organizing.

But you know what, Madam Speaker, I will say on the public record that I believe every Manitoban should be covered by the most basic benefits, whether they be part or full time, unionized or nonunionized. Perhaps that is one of the things that divides us from the Conservatives. Obviously, the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) is saying that only certain Manitobans should be entitled to that coverage under law in Manitoba. He is saying that, if you have a union and they negotiate a collective agreement, that is okay. The free market system, you know, all the sort of buzzwords; but I disagree with the member for River Heights.

The purpose for bringing in this legislation would be similar what happened to Saskatchewan. The people in Saskatchewan--the NDP government in Saskatchewan said you should not have to be a member of a union to have this basic level of benefits, and you should not be discriminated against because you are part-time and not a full-time employee. I would say it is doubly important in this so-called world economy that the member for River Heights talks about--it is doubly important that we protect the many people who are out there in the condition of part-time, term and temporary employment, make sure they have the same rights as every Manitoban. We in the NDP stand for that, Madam Speaker, that is why we brought in this resolution.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) will have eight minutes remaining.

The hour being 5:30 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).