Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in today's debate on the motion that the hon. member has brought forward, which states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the federal government should take all public policy and legislative steps necessary to encourage the adoption of a shorter work week and reduced work time in the public sector, federally regulated industries, and the private sector as a whole.
While I am certain that the member has put the motion forward in all good faith, I have not found convincing evidence that justifies the need for such an action. He has put forward some of the standard points on the issue where I am afraid that the numbers simply do not add up.
The most common work week bantered around over the past two decades has been 30, 32 and 35 hours of work per week. Perhaps the hon. member does not realize that research by Statistics Canada in the year 2000 showed that across all industries the average weekly hours for employees paid by the hour already averaged 31.6 hours per week.
When all work hours are averaged, last year the Christian Science Monitor reported that Canadians worked 42.2 hours, in the 29th position behind countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, China and the United States. The global average is 44.6 hours per week. This clearly has an effect on our overall competitiveness and productivity as a nation. When we are not competitive and our productivity drops, we surely suffer economically as a nation.
Let us clearly recognize that there have been atrocious records in the past of 12 hour days and six day work weeks. While I do not currently believe in the need for a shorter work week, neither do I believe that we should endorse the 72 hour work week that Charles Dickens so eloquently wrote about in the 19th century.
There are some very negative effects of the shortened work week that I want to put on the record. In the March 14, 1994 issue of Maclean's magazine, it was reported that most Canadians now working reduced hours are also earning less as a result. This cannot be helpful to those families who are struggling financially.
While the shortened work week has been touted as the solution for those companies that are in financial crisis, it would also appear to have been short term at best. Furthermore, many of the efforts to have a shortened work week have been controversial. One of the results has actually been a division among workers themselves pitting those with jobs against those without, leading to a potential social upheaval.
Internationally, Business Week reports that France, and the hon. member has already mentioned the French experiment, has found that the shortened work week has resulted in higher expenses for the more highly skilled workers. Furthermore, the move to a shortened work week has also resulted in a discouraging investment in research and development in high tech industries.
The very basis on which we can grow and develop new business opportunities is limited because of a move to shorter work weeks. I certain that irony does not escape members of the public.
Finally, the International Monetary Fund working paper states that under a shorter work week a reduction in the legal work week may induce a degree of downward wage flexibility and that a decline in output cannot be ruled out. This is now what the member wants as a result of such a motion.
In April 1994 the Canadian Federation of Independent Business conducted a ballot with its 100,000 members on the question. It asked if the work week should be shortened as part of a national job creation strategy. In framing this question, the CFIB summarized the issue this way.
As industrialized countries struggle with stubbornly high unemployment rates, some countries, including Canada, are looking at shortening the work week as part of their job creation strategy. Some current discussions focus on a four day work week. Supporters say that at a time when governments and large firms are downsizing, it makes sense to redistribute existing employment to get more people working. Reducing the work week would mean fewer people would be on welfare; that is reducing welfare costs and cutting government spending. A shorter work week with more people working would lead to increased productivity.
On the other hand, opponents say it would only redistribute existing work and not create new jobs. Existing employees would be reluctant to agree to take less pay. There would be an increase in total payroll costs for employers, further deterring real job creation. While large firms could reallocate jobs, this is not often feasible for small firms. It would need new legislation and entail major compliance problems.
The CFIB membership answered the question “Should the work week be shortened?” as part of a national job creation strategy as follows: 16% were in favour; an overwhelming majority of 75% were opposed; and the remaining 9% were either undecided or had no interest in the issue at all.
These are the people who would have struggle to make it work from the employer's perspective. Granted this may be different than the view of the employees. However, if the employer struggles to see how the shorter work week would work for them, any such proposed changes are doomed to be unsuccessful.
I find also that the member's motion is somewhat disrespectful of the role that the private sector has separate from the federal government. I know that this member has been involved in the trade union movement in the past. It surprises me that his motion would call for the involvement of the federal government in areas where it has no real jurisdiction. I am certain that this member would be up in arms if a motion were being debated that called for some form of interference in the role of unions.
I believe that the hours of work are best left to be negotiated between employees and employers. At times the representatives of the employees will be the unions. At other times employees will represent themselves, through professional associations and the like. Employers will sometimes be the government and other times will be the private sector. I believe that we must recognize that each situation will be different.
Currently there are many professions that work extended hours for shorter work weeks, such as the police, firemen and ambulance attendants. Many other industries are subject to change due to fluctuations in the market. Softwood lumber employees in my own riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan are unfortunately very familiar with that.
In the long term the Canadian Alliance wants to create an economic climate in which businesses can thrive and grow and with their success create quality job opportunities for Canadians. We would do so by providing deep, broad-based tax relief and ensuring a stable monetary policy.
The Canadian Alliance would also encourage the entrepreneurial sector by eliminating unnecessary regulations and minimizing government interference in the labour market. We also would foster a healthy economic environment for the benefit of consumers by pursuing free and open trade at home and abroad and eliminating the interprovincial trade barriers that plague our country.
We would withdraw government from areas of the economy where the private could deliver the same services more efficiently and would end the unfair practice of providing subsidies to industry, businesses and special interest groups.
Having said all that, I certainly want to thank the member for bringing the issue forward for debate. However I would encourage employers and employees alike to work toward a balancing of the personal needs of employees with the corporate needs of the employer.
If a business does not make a profit, the business will ultimately close, throwing employees out of work and reducing the tax base for various levels of government. Conversely, if employees are not satisfied in their work and feel that they are not earning a reasonable wage or salary as well as not being treated fairly, they will leave to find employment elsewhere. In my view, neither option is acceptable. The relationship between employees and employers must be symbiotic. They must rely on each other and live together in a relationship that they can jointly build.
I would encourage all employees and employers to discuss issues such as shorter work weeks and other important issues in an open and forthright manner during whatever negotiations take place. I believe this is the more appropriate venue rather than through government interference.