Committee of Supply
April 30, 2008 - Employment & Immigration Department
Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much. I would take advantage of the combination of the two ten minutes in order to get a 20 minute segment here with the minister. He has been quite co operative.
I’m just going to start out by linking with the subject that was on the table previously, and I want to add my voice very strongly to the need for reconsideration of our labour code in this province. I know that it’s a political ideology of the government members. They’re not particularly supportive of unions or union sites, et cetera, et cetera. But I think we have enough statistical information in front of us now about the effect of a union work site: that it’s safer, that more people go home if they’re working on a union site, that there are fewer injuries. I mean, you want to branch beyond that, then economically you will have workers that have pension plans in place so that they’re not running the risk of becoming a so called burden on the government because they’re looked after. They’re much better at helping their union members through the maze of WCB concerns and things like that.
To me, I think the thing that we really are missing in this province is first contract legislation. I mean, the longest, nastiest, most destructive labour strikes we’ve had in this province are all directly connected to first contract legislation and the fact that we haven’t been able to get it. You look at Dynamic Furniture, the Calgary Herald – oh, I wish my colleague was here; he could list off the four or five worst labour disruptions in this province, that were all directly connected to first contract legislation.
You know, I don’t understand why this province can have so much, can be so lucky, can have so much money and be so nasty. You would think that all of that should be a sign of generosity, of an openness to allow everyone to advance, yet I consistently see not a reluctance but a definitive push back from government around that. If we really care about our workers in this province – and let’s face it, they’re the ones that make this world go round, not us – I would think we would do everything in our power to try and protect them and enable them and empower them, and to me first contract legislation is about that.
Second to that is replacement worker legislation. I know that that will truly horrify some of my colleagues here in this House. I don’t care. It’s the right thing to do. You cannot expect that you will have two parties equally at a bargaining table when one of them is allowed to go out and hire other people to continue to do their business. It completely removes any reason for a strike. It completely removes any reason to bring that owner or organizer or whatever to the table to deal in good faith. They have no need to do it because they just hire a bunch of other people and keep right on going. To me that is blatantly unfair, and I think it reflects very poorly upon this province. I know that that’s a socialist way of thinking, and I don’t care because, frankly, I think it’s the right thing to do for this province, and I think that’s the direction that we should go in. So there’s that and a number of other issues that need to be opened in that labour code.
I know that in the fall there were a number of petitions, individual letters, I think, that were signed that we were tabling. I’ve still got almost half a box back at my office, so I’ll continue to table those. They’re outlining five specific parts that they want looked at for the labour code, so I’ll just bring that issue up to start with. Now, what I’d like to do is concentrate on a couple of specific areas. I know my colleague from Lethbridge East wants to talk about caregiver assistance, but I want to concentrate on underemployment of marginalized groups. I mean, we have a labour shortage in this province, no question, and it is always interesting to me the lengths that we will go to bring people in from other countries to fill our workplace vacancies, yet we will not concentrate on people that we have right here. When we’re talking about money that is going to stay right here in our province, where people are going to buy groceries and pay rent and buy cars and pay for their kids to go to soccer, the government seems to run in the other direction from doing that.
One of the most obvious groups that the government consistently overlooks when we’re looking for workers to come into the workforce is women. A big part of that is child care spaces, so my first question to the minister is: what specifically, measurably is the department doing to work with his colleagues to create more child care spaces in this province? We have educated, trained women who want to work, who can work, who should be working, and who are not working because they cannot get quality, accessible child care for their children. We are so far behind in creating spaces; it will take us a long time to get caught up.
hat other innovative measures has the department looked at specifically? Please tell me that there’s some sort of interdepartmental committee of deputy ministers that actually is addressing this particular issue, because if we want to look at the health workforce, we could have a lot of trained nurses back in our health workforce within a couple of months if we could just provide them with child care spaces. You want to look at what’s happening to them in Grande Prairie and Fort McMurray. I’ve been there. I’ve talked to those people. Those women would work happily. They would happily pull shifts, and they can’t because they can’t get child care. In this day and age, in this kind of a world we should be able to be flexible enough in our child care that it isn’t just the traditional 9 to 5 child care. We should be able to cope, especially in places like Grande Prairie and Fort McMurray, with shift work, with flextime, with different opportunities for child care.
Alberta has demonstrably one of the lowest rates of women’s participation in the workforce. If we, for example, had kept up with initiatives like Quebec has put in place, our economy would have the benefit of 17,000 additional workers that are women, that we don’t have right now, that we’re looking for. We’re bringing people in from other countries to do that work. I mean, 17,000 people. Even if half of those people actually wanted to be in the workforce and could be in the workforce, you’re still looking at an additional 8,500 people. Imagine what we could do with 8,500 people in our workforce right now who are educated, trained, wanted to be here, and their money stayed here. Yet nothing. I would like to know the government’s justification for ignoring that particular sector and insisting on concentrating on other areas which, in my opinion, are less productive. So what’s the particular policy that is driving that? For example, are you working with the municipalities to amend the MGA or to look for possibilities through the MGA to allow for different kinds of planning or zoning options through municipalities to require that daycare spaces be built into new buildings? I mean, you want to create spaces. You’ve gotta have the space. Why aren’t you putting it into new buildings? They’re prohibited from doing that because in many cases the MGA does not give them that flexibility.
You guys have got to start getting out of your silos because a piece of that is also about worker accessibility. It’s about transit and availability of transit around; I mean, the number of people that have to get a car so that they can get to a work site that’s remote. What are we doing to work with the municipalities about provision of transit? Well, you say: oh, that’s not my problem; that’s not my ministry. Yes, it is. You know, if we’re talking about workers and we’re talking about getting the right workers to the right workplace, get some innovation.
I’m noticing as well that if we look at budget 4.2.4, labour attraction, that budget has gone up by 60 per cent, but when I look at settlement and integration services, which is 4.2.1, that budget doesn’t look like it has gone up as much, significantly less. I mean, one has gone up about 60 per cent, and one has gone up about half that. My question is: we seem to be able to get workers here, but we can’t keep them, so why do we have the retention part going up significantly less than the recruitment part? What choices were made there that have resulted in that differential in the budget? I think my colleague from Edmonton Gold Bar spoke quite a bit about temporary foreign workers, but I’m going to let the minister answer the questions I’ve put on the table, and then I’d like to come back and talk a bit more about income supports and then return to talking about women’s issues.
The Deputy Chair: The hon. minister.
Mr. Goudreau: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. There were actually quite a few comments there. Again, I will reiterate the fact that if I do miss on some, please feel free to come to me for additional information.
When it comes to, again, the labour relations codes, I want to re-emphasize that generally we have a fairly positive climate in the province of Alberta. As I indicated to the previous member, we do have a strong record of labour peace in this province. More than 99 per cent of our collective agreements were settled this past year alone without any form of job action. Can we do better? Sure, but we do have a very positive track record when it comes to that.
You talked about first contract legislation, replacement worker legislation. Again I need to emphasize that those are certainly not new. Those comments have been brought before in this particular House, and when we do open up the code, then certainly those are some of the items that could be reviewed at that particular time. Moving very, very quickly to the employment of marginalized groups of individuals and the comparison with the temporary foreign worker program, for instance. We are spending a lot more money on groups like our aboriginal communities, our low income workers, those that are unemployed. We’re spending more money on training for those individuals than we are by far on the temporary foreign worker program. As well, our targets to have greater participation in the workforce: our numbers are much higher in the aboriginal community than the numbers that we are using under the temporary foreign worker program. We do want to make sure that those individuals within the province of Alberta and those, as you indicated, that might be part of a marginalized group have first choice, ahead of those under the temporary foreign worker program. We’re certainly not ignoring the child care spaces. If we see that the child care spaces are a barrier for employment, then as a ministry we will pay for those. We’ll also pay for some supplementary benefits. You alluded to transportation, and if we find that transportation is a barrier to employment, we’ll help to cover those particular costs. I might also add that we also will cover cost of tools, for instance, or clothing if that’s what’s required for those individuals that are marginalized to get into the workforce.
I, too, believe that our females can have a greater role in the Alberta workforce, and certainly, as you identified that there might be some barriers, we’re prepared to overcome that, including working with more employers to see if there is a possibility of offering some flexible work hours. Employers also might have responsibility in terms of offering individual daycare spaces, and some have gone that far to ensure that they get increased worker participation. I agree that the child care spaces are an issue, and we need to keep on working with all of our colleagues, those ministers here, especially the minister of children’s services, to see that some of those spaces are increased. The minister has indicated over the past few days right here in the Legislature that she is working on increased daycare spaces for the province of Alberta.
Going back to some of the last comments, when you looked at the voted expenditures there, you alluded to line 4.2.4 under Attraction. You indicated that maybe those numbers are up by 60 per cent. If you look from our estimate in ’08 09 and compare it to the expenditures in ’07 08, the numbers go from $6.374 million to $7 million.
In my math that’s up by 10 per cent, not by 60 per cent. So we’ve done that. Then you go back to the settlement one, and the numbers go from $6.464 million to $8.274 million, and that is up by 30 per cent. That number has climbed by about 30 per cent. So we are putting more emphasis on the supplement side than we do on the attraction side, and we’ve increased those budget dollars accordingly.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: The hon. member.
Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’m sorry; I just can’t let this go by. I know the minister didn’t say that this was union friendly, but he said something close to that. That’s an unbelievable statement. I mean, this is a province where we allow a non union union like CLAC to enjoy all of the benefits that are allocated to those few unions that we do have. It doesn’t represent their workers. So to say that, well, we’re just as good as every other province – I mean, it’s unacceptable. This is a province that puts Merit Contractors on the Labour Relations Board. I mean, unbelievable statements.
I’m going to move on, or my head’s going to pop off. To say that, you know, it’s a first choice – but it’s not a choice at all if people actually cannot participate if there are barriers to them.
I’m interested that the minister says that the ministry will help with transportation to get people into the workforce. So two questions: exactly how does that program work, or where is the access point for it? Two, is it only getting into the workforce? Is it also retention and staying in the workforce? If transportation’s an issue, is assistance also available?
My question to you about working with your colleague around daycare spaces. I was looking for what you were doing that was measurable, so maybe I can get you to go back and look at that again.
I’m just going to look at some of the supplementary benefits that are offered here.
Mr. MacDonald: Are you a member of CLAC?
Ms Blakeman: Absolutely not. I won’t even shop in their store. The national child care supplement is treated as unearned income and is charged against social assistance. We have the Alberta government clawing back dollar for dollar the maximum supplement that’s provided by the federal government, and Alberta is the only province to do this. How can the minister justify taking that money from people who are in transition of a benefit that was bestowed upon them by another level of government? So the feds give them transition money, and the province then claws back their supplementary benefits dollar for dollar from what the feds are giving them. This isn’t the only program where they do that, but I’d like to know what the justification is in doing that. When we’re trying to move people, you know, transition them on, why does this government choose to do that to them at that time?
I’d like to know how long income support clients are able to retain those supplementary benefits after leaving the income support program. How long do they have? Please, if you could spell that out for us.
I think we now know or we have the documentation to show that economists and, certainly, social policy analysts recognize that asset based clawbacks from government programs discourage poor families from saving. Can I get any kind of a commitment from the government to removing or reducing asset based clawbacks in order to allow low income or poor families to build a base for longer term security? Otherwise, we just keep this cycle going, and you guys know that as well as I do.
I want to go back to this situation of women. Almost half of the single, widowed, and divorced women over 65 are poor. We have a benefit program, the widow’s pension, that’s in place, but I believe that there’s a sunset clause on it. I’m wondering if the widow’s pension program will be replaced with anything else, and I’m wondering why there are no other programs besides the widow’s pension which specifically target our poorest citizens, which are women.
[…]
Ms Blakeman: No. I’ll take it. Thank you very much. I’ll continue to do a back and forth in the 11 minutes we have left here. First of all, the questions the minister was unable to answer from my last series of questions I’m happy to receive in writing, and I look forward to that.
A couple of questions picking up on some of the other conversations I’ve heard here. The Member for Livingstone Macleod was talking about the settlement money that was available for the temporary foreign workers, and the minister mentioned that there was $1.4 million for settlement of temporary foreign workers. Could I get details on exactly how that money is being used? Is it being distributed to employers to pay for rent for temporary foreign workers? Is the ministry buying an apartment building that people are going into? The $1.4 million: how is that being used?
The next issue is WCB. I’m wondering what has happened to the recommendations from the two reports that were done on WCB. One was the Friedman report, and I think the second one was an internal report. That’s come up a couple of times here this afternoon, and I’m wondering what’s happened to the recommendations from that. Have we had any of the recommendations implemented? Are there any more recommendations that we expect to have implemented by the department in the upcoming year? I know my colleague asked about long time, unresolved, contentious, but I know there were a number that were in there about medical reviews and the WCB doctors overturning people’s medical practitioners, et cetera.
Last question in cleanup, then. The capital money that is coming from the federal government to pay for the additional building for the francophone community in Edmonton: is the province adding any money to that project, or is it completely a flow through from the federal government? Money comes in from the feds, goes out to the project; province doesn’t add anything to it.
Those are the four questions that are remaining from the other things I’ve heard. The other question that I’d like to get on the record is – two questions around single mothers. One, we often end up with single mothers that are caught in a judicial process, and that often goes on over a long period of time. It’s financially draining and takes up an awful lot of time. Has the ministry considered offering any kind of a supplementary benefit that would help single mothers that are currently on income support programs to deal with this additional burden of legal liabilities and having to go back to court over and over again to fight what the husbands or common law partners are putting the women through in court? Right now they’re left without any benefits. Is anything being considered there? The Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women has noted – well, anybody could see – that children are poor because their mothers are poor, and most of the poor families in fact are headed by women. One in eight children in Alberta is poor – and that’s Edmonton Social Planning Council numbers – so we are higher than the national average. We’ve got poverty linked to poor health and poor school achievement. Poor performance then goes on and becomes a fairly stable predictor of adult involvement in criminal activity. I’m wondering what the government is doing to stem and work directly around child poverty. You’re the one that’s allocating the income benefits that mothers are on. In particular, I’m wondering if the department still has in effect the requirement that any mother must start looking for work when her youngest child is six months old. Is that requirement still in place, or has it, I hope, been banished forever? Truly, that was an embarrassment.
Finally, is the government considering any kind of pay equity legislation?
I’ll let the minister answer those questions. Thank you.
Mr. Goudreau: Thank you for the questions. When it comes to settlement, that’s about $1.4 million that’s been allocated to a two-year settlement service pilot project for our temporary foreign workers, and most of the money will go directly to the agencies. A number of settlement service agencies across the province will be selected to provide basic settlement services, including things like banking, grocery shopping, winter clothing, and just anything to help ease the transition to a new way of life in Alberta. It’s all about orientation, and the dollars are going to the agencies to provide that type of service.
We’ll have to get back to you on the WCB question. We’ll provide a written response on that particular one.
You also questioned the $3.6 million to the Cité francophone. That’s in addition to the building. It’s a direct flow through from the federal government through our ministry back to them. We are not as a ministry putting additional dollars into that particular program. Having said that, in my previous ministry we did approve some dollars under the major facilities program towards that one. Provincially we were matching it but not through our ministry; it was through the major facilities program. As well I believe the city of Edmonton has put in some money, and the community at large has put some money in that one.
You talked about the single mothers on support. We do provide some support while they go through the court process. We’ll provide the financial support that’s required while they go through that particular process.
Finally, the one where you talked about the need to start looking for work after six months. That has been changed from six months to one year. So we did make those changes.
The Deputy Chair: The hon. member.
Ms Blakeman: Thank you. Alberta is the only province that does not provide protection to workers who take time off work to provide caregiver activities to terminally ill relatives. In fact, the federal government has just expanded their program. It used to be limited to parents or children, and now they’ve expanded it to include siblings and others. You know, in Alberta if you take that time off, the employer is under no obligation to hold your job open for you. I’m wondering why we have no compassionate care leave and if there are any plans to implement that here in Alberta. Again, that would keep some people in the workforce or would at least have them come back without losing them completely.
In addition, of course, when we look at things like the extended parent leave, what used to be maternity benefits – and we now happily look upon that as parental leave benefits – the province doesn’t put any money into a benefit program that the parents can pull from. The province relies entirely on the federal government employment program for people to access funds while they’re off work. Again, are there any plans for the provincial government to augment that program in any way?
I mean, this is 2008. I was very interested in the reaction from a number of people when I was talking about women in the workforce and women’s place and encouraging women to work. It was not entirely supportive, which is very interesting in 2008 from legislators in the provincial Legislative Assembly. Not a good sign. I think there’s an attitudinal shift or a paradigm shift that needs to happen. If we’re trying to encourage women to have families and to contribute to their community, if we make it so difficult for them to find the benefits they need to in fact have a family and participate in the workforce as much as they would like to do: I’m wondering if the minister can comment on that, please.
Mr. Goudreau: Just very, very briefly I’ll provide some information. You know, when you talk about terminally ill individuals and the protection for workers and the other issues, including employment standards for our ladies in the workforce, those kinds of things, that becomes part of that full review that we talked about earlier on. When we look at the overall employment standards code, we will have to bring that in as part of that overall review.
Other Sections
Youth Voice
@ The Leg
Photo Blog