Manitoba Committee Hansard — 11 June 2012 (Human Resources Committee, Sitting 3, 40th Legislature, 1st Session)

40-1-hr3

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session - Fortieth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Human Resources Chairperson Mr. Matt Wiebe Constituency of Concordia Vol. LXIV No. 3 - 6 p.m., Monday, June 11, 2012 ISSN 1708-6655

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Fortieth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital NDP ALLUM, James Fort Garry-Riverview NDP ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley NDP ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thompson NDP BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli NDP BLADY, Sharon Kirkfield Park NDP BRAUN, Erna Rossmere NDP BRIESE, Stuart Agassiz PC CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East NDP CHIEF, Kevin, Hon. Point Douglas NDP CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan NDP CROTHERS, Deanne St.

James NDP CULLEN, Cliff Spruce Woods PC DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk NDP DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood PC EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside PC EWASKO, Wayne Lac du Bonnet PC FRIESEN, Cameron Morden-Winkler PC GAUDREAU, Dave St. Norbert NDP GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Liberal GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach PC GRAYDON, Cliff Emerson PC HELWER, Reg Brandon West PC HOWARD, Jennifer, Hon. Fort Rouge NDP IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri, Hon. Fort Richmond NDP JHA, Bidhu Radisson NDP KOSTYSHYN, Ron, Hon. Swan River NDP LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. Dawson Trail NDP MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St.

Johns NDP MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden PC MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Flor, Hon. Logan NDP MARCELINO, Ted Tyndall Park NDP McFADYEN, Hugh Fort Whyte PC MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel NDP MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East PC NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake NDP OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River NDP PEDERSEN, Blaine Midland PC PETTERSEN, Clarence Flin Flon NDP REID, Daryl, Hon. Transcona NDP ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Kewatinook NDP RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia NDP ROWAT, Leanne Riding Mountain PC SARAN, Mohinder The Maples NDP SCHULER, Ron St. Paul PC SELBY, Erin, Hon. Southdale NDP SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St.

Boniface NDP SMOOK, Dennis La Verendrye PC STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo PC STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin NDP SWAN, Andrew, Hon. Minto NDP TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris PC WHITEHEAD, Frank The Pas NDP WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WIGHT, Melanie Burrows NDP WISHART, Ian Portage la Prairie PC

73 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES Monday, June 11, 2012 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Mohinder Saran (The Maples) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Ms. Howard, Hon. Mr. Lemieux, Hon. Ms. Oswald, Hon. Messrs. Rondeau, Struthers Mr. Briese, Mrs. Driedger, Mr. Saran, Mmes. Stefanson, Taillieu, Mr. Wiebe APPEARING: Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights Mr. Ron Schuler, MLA for St. Paul Mr.

Cliff Cullen, MLA for Spruce Woods PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Bill 23 –The Local Government Statutes Amendment Act Mr. Doug Dobrowolski, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Mr. G. Henry Holowchak, private citizen Bill 6 –The Regional Health Authorities Amendment Act (Improved Fiscal Responsibility and Community Involvement) Mr. John Friesen, Eden Mental Health Centre Mr. Gerald Pronyk, MARCHE - Manitoba Association of Residential and Community Care Homes for the Elderly Ms. Julie Turenne-Maynard, IHCAM - Interfaith Health Care Association of Manitoba Mr.

Daniel Lussier, CHAM - Catholic Health Association of Manitoba Bill 8 –The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Use of Child Safety Seats) Ms. Lynne Warda, Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, Injury Prevention Program Bill 37 –The Highway Traffic Amendment and

Summary Convictions Amendment Act (Bicycle Helmets) Ms. Lynne Warda, Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, Injury Prevention Program Mr. James Beddome, Green Party of Manitoba Bill 33 –The Election Financing Act and Elections Amendment Act Mr. Roy McPhail, private citizen Mr. James Beddome, Green Party of Manitoba Bill 34 –The Public -Private Partnerships Transparency and Accountability Act Mr. Jeff Browaty and Mr. Russ Wyatt , City of Winnipeg Mr. Chris Lorenc, Manitoba Heavy Construction Association Ms. Lynne Fernandez, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Mr. Chuck Davidson, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce Mr.

John Loxley, private citizen Mr. David Sauer, Winnipeg Labour Council and Manitoba Federation of Labour Mr. Ross Eadie, City of Winnipeg Bill 35 –The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment Act Mr. Lanny McInnes, Retail Council of Canada Mr.

Chuck Davidson, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 6 –The Regional Health Authorities Amendment Act (Improved Fiscal Responsibility and Community Involvement) Doug Dobrowolski, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Bill 34 –The Public -Private Partnerships Transparency and Accountability Act Doug Dobrowolski, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Barry Brown, Maple Leaf Construction

74 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11, 2012 Bill 35 –The Retail Businesses Holiday Closi ng Amendment Act Doug Dobrowolski, Association of Manitoba Municipalities MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 6 –The Regional Health Authorities Amendment Act (Improved Fiscal Responsibility and Community Involvement) Bill 8 –The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Use of Child Safety Seats) Bill 23 –The Local Government Statutes Amendment Act Bill 33 –The Election Financing Act and Elections Amendment Act Bill 34 –The Public -Private Partnerships Transparency and Accountability Act Bill 35 –The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment Act Bill 37 –The Highway Traffic Amendment and

Summary Convictions Amendment Act (Bicycle Helmets) * * * Mr. Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Human Resources please come to order.

This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 6, The Regional Health Authorities Amendment Act (Improved Fiscal Responsibility and Community Involvement); Bill 8, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Use of Child Safety Seats) ; Bill 23, The Local Government Statutes Amendment Act ; Bill 33, The Election Financing Act and Elections Amendment Act ; Bill 34, The Public -Private Partnerships Trans- parency and Accountability Act ; Bill 35, The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment Act ; and Bill 37, The Highway Traffic Amendment and

Summary Convictions Amendment Act (Bicycle Helmets). How long does the committee wish to sit this evening? Hon. Jennifer Howard (Minister of Family Services and Labour): I suggest we sit until we've concluded our business tonight. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, is that–is the committee in agreement? [Agreed] We have a number of presenters registered to speak tonight as noted on the list presented before you–of presenters before you. On the topic of determining an order of public presentations, I will note that we will–that we have out-of-town presenters in attendance, marked with an 'asterix' on the list.

With this consideration in mind, what order does the committee wish to hear the presentations? Ms. Howard: Is it the question if we should hear the out-of-town presenters first? Yes, I think we should hear the out-of-town presenters first. Mr. Chairperson: It has been suggested that we hear the out -of-town presenters first. Is that the agreement of the committee? [Agreed] Before we proceed with presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider.

First of all, if there is anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation this evening, please register with th e staff at the entrance of the room. Also, for the information of all presenters, while written versions of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompany your presentation with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies. If you need help with photocopying, please ask our staff.

As well, I would like to inform presenters that, in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations, with another five minutes allowed for questions from committee members. Also, in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be remove d from the presenters' list.

Written submissions from the following persons have been received and distributed to committee members: Doug Dobrowolski, president of the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, on bills 6, 34 and 35; Barry Brown, president of Maple Leaf Construction, on Bill 34. Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in Hansard–in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed]

June 11, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 75 Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee. The proceedings of our meeting are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for Hansard recorder to turn the mikes on or off. Thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with public presentations. Bill 23– The Local Government Statutes Amendment Act Mr.

Chairperson: I would like to call– I will now call on Doug Dobrowolski, president of the Association of Manitoba Municipalities. Mr. Dobrowolski, do you have a written submission for the committee? Mr. Doug Dobrowolski (Association of Manitoba Municipalities): Yes. Mr. Chairperson: Those are being distributed now. You may proceed with your presentation. Mr. Dobrowolski: Well, good evening. The Association of Manitoba Municipalities would like to state our views on Bill 23, The Local Government Statutes Amendment Act.

This bill would require all municipalities outside the city of Winnipeg to put into place policies and practices aimed at strengthening accountability of municipal councils and supporting transparent decision-making process. They propose amendments –the proposed amendments should support municipalities in governing objectively, fairly and with the best interests of their communities. The AMM, as the association that represents all 197 incorporated municipalities in Manitoba, share these priorities.

We understand Bill 23's amendments would require each municipality to (1) follow a code of conduct that would set standards of behaviour for municipal council members and exercise the authority of censure of a mem ber who has breached the code ; (2) provide a notice and information to the public about capital projects prior to borrowing funds for projects so citizens would have information to enable them to voice their concerns before projects are– move forward ; (3) follow a tendering and procurement policy to ensure spending decisions are objective and fair, and municipal resources are used in the m ost efficient and effective way; (4) follow a policy to ensure practices for use –for the private use of municipal equipme nt are clear and consistently applied; and (5) report on council's response to any recommendation made in a report by the office of the Auditor General, so that citizens will be aware of the recommendations and will be able to hold their councils accountable for responding to them.

We understand Bill 23 would also expand existing legislation to reduce the potential for conflict-of-interest situations when municipalities work regionally. Overall, these are positive changes and the AMM welcomes them. Municipalities, like any other levels of government, must be accountable to the ratepayers. Strengthening council accountability and ensuring transparent decision making is a good thing for everybody. For this reason, the AMM frequently invites Manitoba Local G overnment to address our members on topics of municipal conflict of interest and the needs of openness and transparency.

The Manitoba Ombudsman also has taken

part in AMM events, and we partnered with the Ombudsman office to produce a guide called Understanding Fairness, a handbook on fairness for municipal leaders . Along with Manitoba Local Government and the Manitoba Municipal Administrators' Association, Mr. Speaker, we also produced, in partnership with Manitoba Local Government, a guide called Once Elected… What is Expected? for councillors following the 2010 municipal election. This guide includes sessions on conflict of interest and citizen access to information.

In short, we take every opportunity to provide our members the information they need and our members are willing to participate in these events to learn as much as they can. Manitoba municipalities make important decisions every day. These decisions have the power to impact the lives of our citizens, and our members take this responsibility very seriously. However, having straightforward and concise rules to follow is essential. Municipal elected officials work for a little pay, and many hold down full -time jobs while also serving their communities in a part-time capacity.

These positions a re, in many cases, almost volunteer in nature. This is not to downplay the important work of our members do, but rather to stress the many different and time -consuming roles local community leaders must play. For this reason, we count on the provincial gov ernment to provide clear and transparent guidelines to put these amendments in place.

76 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11, 2012 It is important that the new rules be straightforward so not to add to the municipality's already heavy workload. Of further concern is the proposed requirement for tendering and procurement policy. We can all agree that municipal resources must be used in the most effective and efficient way possible, and spending decisions be objective and fair. However, it is important that the proposed policy not create unnecessary delays to tendering and borrowing procedures.

As well, we all know such delays typically result in rising project costs which can create financial burdens to municipal budgets already stretched thin. In closing, we appreciate the Province of Manitoba's initiative in introducing legislation aimed at increasing municipal council effectiveness. Ultimately, the provincial government and the AMM are striving for the same results–strong and efficient municipal government. The proposed amendments should enhance our member's ability to achieve this status, rather than hinder it with complicated processes and time -consuming red tape.

We will continue to closely follow the implementation on these changes. Thank you. * (18:10) Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Dobrowolski, for your presentation. We'll now move on to questions. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenters? Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Local Government): Doug, I just want to thank you and Joe for making your presentation and also for being supportive. Ultimately, the Province and AMM are striving for the same thing: strong and effective municipal government.

But I want to thank you, in particular, for your respect of this process and the democratic process. You are in McCre ary, Manitoba, and one of your regional meetings that McCreary is located near Ste. Rose, and Doug went there today, returned tonight and then tomorrow morning he's off to Sandy Lake at their second regional meeting. So thank you very much for that, and I appreciate you taking the time, sincerely, to present to us tonight. Thank you. Mr. Stuart Briese (Agassiz): Mr. Chair, I do concur with the minister on –I'm impressed with your dedication to come from McCreary.

I know a little bit about some of the travels you do and it's great to have you here, and I also understand all the great work the municipalities do in this province. Just in pertaining to the bill, on the conflict –the code of conflict it allows –after the code of conflict there's a

section in here that says a council may censure a member if they determine that that member has breached the code of conduct, and that's all the bill says. It doesn't say whether there's any guidelines or on possible penalties. It doesn't say whether there's an appeal process, possibly, for a council that may be censured, and I just would like your comments on that, if I may. Mr. Dobrowolski: As I mentioned in my presentation, we're hope there's going to be clear and concise details to this bill.

And they'll–and also most municipalities have a policies and procedure manual where they outline a lot of that in their own council, because each council operates a little differently just because of where they're located and size of council. So a lot of that is put in their own policies and procedures manual. Mr. Briese: Thank you for that. I'm still going to go on myself, having problems with that c ensure word in there. But the other question I have on the bill itself is they–there's a requirement in here now for councillors, mayors and reeves to report all land they own anywhere in the province.

I would see probably that it was –they should and do, at the present time, report their ownership in their own jurisdiction. But now it's being expanded to all over the province, what's your view on that? Mr. Dobrowolski: I think this bill is all about accountability, and I think they should list all the holdings that they have, because if they're even perceived as a conflict of interest it only protects themself that they've put this on their asset sheet. Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, thank you once again for your presentation. Now like to move on to the next out -of-town presenter, Mr. G.

Henry Holowchak, private citizen. Thank you, Mr. Holowchak, you have written materials for the committee? Mr. G. Henry Holowchak (Private Citizen): Yes, I do. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, and the Clerk will a ssist you with distributing those, and you may proceed with your presentation when ready. Mr. Holowchak: I'd like to thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for having me here today. I'm speaking in

June 11, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 77 regards to Bill 23 and, more particularly, in regards to The Municipal Act. I do not believe the currently proposed censuring of a council member goes far enough to stem aberrant behaviour. If people are violating their oath of office and ignoring rules as laid out in sections 22 and 23 right now, I doubt they will be concerned about a locally written code of conduct. Censuring is a minor slap to the wrist for a continual offender.

I propose RM and LUD councils be mandated to initiate a recall election process once a recall with 20 per cent of the electorates' signatures are collected and given to council, and I propose this in large part because of the following information that has been brought to my attention. This is regarding the RM of Siglunes and, specifically, to the reeve. We, a majority of council members wish to advise you that the manner in which you have been and continue to conduct yourself on behalf of our municipality will no longer be tolerated.

When the head of council chooses to demean and degrade employees, ignore, deny, contradict and overrule c ouncillors and members of the LUD committee and then, further, bully or exclude any councillor he disagrees with, or who disagrees with him, this only renders this council ineffective and dysfunctional. You might think that the sexual innuendos and comment s you have made to female staff during your time on council are funny. They are not. This is sexual harassment; it is not acceptable in any way. We are at a crucial time to recover from last year's flood.

This is a time when we need strong and steady lead ership to guide council and staff in a unified manner, encouraging team spirit for the overall common good of our taxpayers and residents. Instead, what you are delivering is undermining, demoralizing, unethical and potentially illegal behaviour towards council members and staff. You seem to think you're the only member of council and you conduct business, make decisions and obligate the RM, often without the knowledge of some or all of us. This will no longer be tolerated. We will –we were all elected to make decisions for the overall good of our municipality.

This falls on seven members of council, not one. We feel you have cost the municipality more money due to your many personality conflicts. You have exhibited irrational behaviour and have shown both bias and favouritism when dealing with taxpayers, the LUD, contractors and other individuals, and you demand or bully us into going along with you. We will no longer allow this to continue. We will no longer pass a resolution after the fact to save you from embarrassment and financial responsibility.

From this day forward, we will refuse to pay accounts that have been submitted for work ordered by you that have not been first discussed at a council meeting and passed by resolution. We have lost staff and could potentially lose all of our staff strictly due to your behaviour. We are at fault for not putting a stop to it before now. We are committed to not allowing that mistake to continue. Our staff is important to us as a municipality and we cannot deliver the services we have promised without training knowledgeable staff.

We intend to pass a resolution at the next meeting restricting you from speaking on behalf of the RM or conducting any business on our behalf, without first getting council's permission by way of a resolution. Although the act is very clear on the fact that councils cannot act without a resolution or a bylaw, we feel it is necessary and in the best interests of the RM of Siglunes to identify that the reeve in our RM has absolutely no more power than any other member of council. This will then become public knowledge.

We've been embarrassed several times because you have made commitments and plans without telling us or the staff. We all swore an oath before taking our positions. In that oath we promised to act faithfully, without fear, favour, or affection and will truly, faithfully and impartially execute the duties and responsibilities of that office. We do not feel that you are honouring that oath, and by not honouring it, you are causing harm to this municipality, its taxpayers, its staff, and its council.

Just to let you know, I and several other people attended a council meeting last week after the reeve received this letter and we saw this man be very demeaning, degrading and abusive to two councillors. So it appears that this letter, even though they are, in a sense, trying to censure him through a resolution, has not worked and they –and council did not, as they had promised, put forward that resolution to make it public. Council is in capable of stopping the abhorrent behaviour and so will censuring. A recall election process is our best hope to stop the lunacy. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr.

Holowchak, for your presentation.

78 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11, 2012 I'll now move on to questions. Mr. Lemieux: Not a question. I'm certainly not prepared to deal with the specifics of this particular issue you raise, but I just want to say, and put on the record and be clear, out of the 197 municipalities that are in Manitoba currently, many of the municipalities has been pointed out by your –by a previous speaker, the president of the association, on how they work extremely hard for very little pay, have full -time jobs, and they do a tremendous job.

And I know they don't need me defending them , but I have to tell yo u that it is concerning to have this raised. But I have to tell you that, this piece of legislation is meant to address a lot of what you speak and what you've touched on.

But, again, I want reiterate that those municipalities, and I hope people in attendance and are listening and also the transcript of Hansard, points out that municipalities overall in Manitoba treat each other with a great deal of respect; those elected officials do so, the democratic system that we have in place and municipalities are a mature, responsible government and councils are elected to make decisions that are in the best interests of their communities.

And every four years, they have a report card or an election, and that they have to go before the public and they have to be accountable for what they've done. And that's what being a mature level of government is, and–but I do appreciate you taking the time this evening to come forward to express your views. And that's what the committee is all about, and that's why we have presen ters like yourself and others give their views on legislation. * (18:20) Some may feel it's not going far enough.

Others feel legislation's going too far, and so as a government we try to reach a balance to be accepted by the public on what we're trying t o present, but I just want to thank you very much for taking the time to come to make your presentation to us. Mr. Briese: I, too, would thank you for your presentation, Mr. Holowchak. That's what this is all about is for people to get their views on the record at these committee hearings. And you heard from the previous presenter, from myself speaking to the previous presenter, I have some concerns with the censure

section of this bill too. So I do want to thank you for being here. Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, thank you once again for your presentation. Bill 6–The Regional Health Authorities Amendment Act (Improved Fiscal Responsibility and Community Involvement) Mr. Chairperson: For the information of the committee, I will–there has been a late registrant, an out-of-town presenter that I will now call on. Would Mr. John Friesen please come to make your presentation. Mr. John Friesen. Mr. John Friesen, Eden Mental Health Centre. Okay. Mr. Friesen, do you have a written submission for the committee? Mr.

John Friesen (Eden Mental Health Centre): No, I have an oral presentation. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, please proceed when you're ready. Mr. Friesen: My presentation is in regards to the bill about health care, and I'm chair of the board of Eden Mental Health Centre in Winkler. Eden Mental Health Centre is one of the programs of the Eden Health Care Services, and we receive about $6.7 million each year through the Central RHA.

We work co- operatively with the Central RHA in delivering the mental health services as well as mental health community services within the southern half –especially southern half of Central RHA. We are–we work very well together with the RHA, very closely, very co -operatively, and at least during the last number of years, we have seen no difficulties in the way we've been operating. We keep them informed.

We meet co -operatively when we make appointments –staff appointments, and we feel that at this point, we're not aware of any tensions or problems nor have we heard from the RHA that they have problems with the way things are operating. So we feel things are working well. And so my feeling would be, and the feeling of Eden would be, that the proposed legislation would be unnecessary to solve problems because right now we're not experiencing any major problems in the way we're working with Central RHA. So that would be my submission, that, I guess, to quote an old adage, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

That's kind of our feeling. Things are working well. So thank you, that's my presentation.

June 11, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 79 Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Friesen. We'll now move on to questions. Hon. T heresa Oswald (Minister of Health): Just very briefly, Mr. Friesen, I want to thank you for making the trip to come and share your views, and certainly to take this opportunity to thank you on behalf of all Manitobans and the people of your region for the extraordinary work you do with families who are living with mental illness. This is a service that is life saving and life changing, so we thank you for that.

And, certainly, I think the point, you know, very simply so, that you raise about a strong working relationship with the regional health authority being in existence now is a great thin g, and we know that in many environments that that is the case and we're very, very grateful for that. We have had some situations where there have been some challenges, issues with fiscal transparency and accountability.

We're hoping that we can build on the strength of relationships and care that exists in our existing system while at the same time strengthening for those areas, not yours, clearly, where we do need to do some strengthening and do some work. So I appreciate your comments and would agree wholeheartedly that we don't want to amend in any way the things that are working beautifully. We want to ensure, in the areas where they're not working beautifully, that we set the table for that to be righted. So thank you very much for your comments thi s evening. Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Thank you, Mr.

Friesen, for being here tonight and bringing forward your concern. My question to you would be, what most concerns you about this legislation, are there some specific issues that you most worry about? Mr. Friesen: The aspects, I think, that I noted and also that what will be presented in the briefs later on, I think related to one, the appointment of CEOs or some of the directors of the programs where we work very–well, co-operatively with the Central RHA and that we–I think we've been able to make very good appointments.

And on that score, I think our concern always is that the person who is appointed to lead our institution has both a good relationship with the RHA and with the community. And that kind of balance we would want to maintain, and if there be anything in the legislation that would jeopardize that we would be concerned. I think another area is the use of surplus funds, which was addressed, I think, and I think on that score, too, w e worked well with the Central RHA where we have occasionally had some surplus funds and they have been set aside for special projects.

Sometimes we work, then, with special projects that would be the kind that the RHA might in other cases fund and they don't have to because we co - operatively decide we'll use some of the surplus money to do that. And it's sometimes possible to do something extra that might not be in the budget, but working together with the RHA about how we use those funds. So, again, I don't think that has ever –that has become–I don't think that has become an issue. That's not an ongoing issue. We –we're not aware of that's an issue, and I think we've been able to work well with the funding in that respect as well.

And I think the funding f rom year to year in the last number of years has been fairly minimal, so I think we have been fairly efficient in the way we have operated. I know from 2010 to 2011 our increase on a $6.7-million budget was $20,000, so–and in terms of what we received from the RHA. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights) : Your Eden Mental Health C entre has an excellent reputation, and so thank you for the work that you do and the people who are working with you. One of the things about this change is that it will considerably enlarge the geographic area that the RHA would be responsible for.

Would that have implications for the Eden M ental Health Centre at all? Mr. Friesen: Yes, it does have implications, and I think, as far as we're concerned, positive ones. We – the Central RHA and the South Eastman RHA are being amalgamated into one. We had, already, for a number of years, been in discussion with Eastman RHA to see whether we could provide mental health services–institutional mental health services for them as well, and working with two RHAs was sometimes complicated in terms of remuneration, funding and so on.

By putting the two RHAs together we'll actually simplify that whole process and now we will be able to provide that and work directly with people in the former Eastman RHA, and some of the bureaucracy and red tape that hindered us working

80 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11, 2012 together before will not be there now. So I think there's a positive. So we don't see any particular negatives in bringing those two RHAs together in terms of the work that we do. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Seeing no further questions, thank you for your time, Mr. Friesen, your presentation. Thank you. Seeing no further out -of-town presenters, I will now move to the beginning of the list and begin calling presenters in order. I would like to call Mr. Gerald Pronyk, chair of the Manitoba Association of Residential and Community Care Homes for the Elderly. Mr.

Pronyk, do you have a written submission for the committee? Mr. Gerald Pronyk ( MARCHE - Manitoba Association of Residential and Community Care Homes for the Elderly) : Yes, and I have some handouts. Mr. Chairperson: Great, and if you give that to the Clerk, they will assist you and you may proceed with your presentation, then, when ready. * (18:30) Mr. Pronyk: Honourable ministers, MLAs and guests. Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to make this presentation.

My name is Gerald Pronyk and I am the board chairman of the Manitoba Association of Residential and Community Care Homes for the Elderly, commonly known as MARCHE. And I'd also like to introduce Mr. Brian Schwartz and Mr. Andrew Argarenko [phonetic], who will assist us in this process.

Our MARCHE members are deeply concerned with respect to the provisions of Bill 6, on private health-care organizations, which we believe unilaterally enhance bureaucratic control in several areas that our members believe are crucial to the autonomy of private organizations and the ir ultimate ability to carry out their mission, including resident care. Non-profit organizations are no less private and proprietary, no less a part of civil society than our commercial operations. Despite this, we are distressed to find that the government increasingly views our members as an extension of government.

We, in the non- profit sector, find our autonomy threatened and our proprietary rights jeopardized even more than the commercial sector. It is one thing to enhance the accountability and efficiency of government bureaucracies –that is one dimension of Bill 6 that we take no position on these provisions. It is quite another to give bureaucracies new powers to intrude on aspects of great sensitivity and importance to autonomy of private instit utions, including their ability to select and compensate their leaders and control their own operating surpluses. Private institutions are an integral part of a free society.

Their existence in the health -care sector means that there is more variety in ch oice in the system for residents and service providers. There's more opportunity for innovation and experi - mentation. Different groups of supporters, leaders and providers, with their distinctive ideas, traditions and experience and visions, can find distinctive ways to understand and meet the needs of residents and their families. No. 1, we feel that Bill 6 contravenes a long- standing negotiated agreements.

Bill 6 unilaterally overrides these agreements that have been negotiated between the government and our members, which provided assurances to those elements which Bill 6 attempts to restrain. Specifically, Bill 6 is contrary to the provisions of the service purchase agreements currently in existence with all PCH.

Concerning property ownership, the rights for private organizations to retain and apply, at their own discretion, savings resulting in operational surpluses they achieve, through efficient operation, and the right to private organizations to hire their own senior staff and acknowledge that compensation arrangements can and do vary with circumstances in each respective personal care home facility. Bill 6 is contrary to the faith -based agreement of 1999. Leadership is absolutely crucial to the ability of faith -based organizations to realize their distinctive missions.

Bureaucratic interference in selection and retention of leaders threatens the autonomy of faith -based organizations at the most fundamental level. The sponsors of faith- based organizations also invest time, labour and money in them, and their ability to use their assets to achieve their mission is also of crucial importance. The current negotiated service purchase agreements for MARCHE PCHs provides that the corporation is an independent and autonomous entity which has full and unre stricted rights and control of all matters relating to ownership of its property and

June 11, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 81 assets, it's corporate structure, it's sponsorship, governance and mission. The parties wish to embody the principles of the agreement on faith- related issues. The next article, regarding collaboration, the WRHA and the PCH health corporation may each seek consultative input from the other in the selection and evaluation of its respected executive director. The consultation input will be of an advisory nature only.

The next article, the financial resources allocated to the PCH health corporation shall include funding for management and staff of the personal care home. The level of funding for an executive director will depend on the circumstances of the PCH health corporation, and this funding shall be included in the funding allocation for management for the personal care home.

The next article, the WRHA recognizes the need to provide incentives for efficient management across the system, and consequently it is agreed that the PCH health corporation may unconditionally retain the greater of 50 per cent of its operating budget in any fiscal year and two per cent of the global budget.

Article 21.2, the PCH health corporation retains the sole right to appoint, evaluate, and terminate its executive director and all staff. To reiterate, Bill 6 is inconsistent with this whole range of carefully negotiated and long- standing agreements to protect the autonomy of private institutions. Number 2, RHA control of surplus operating fund and the funds from ancillary services may become a disincentive for organizations to be efficient and innovative in their operation. Bill 6 authorizes Cabinet to regulate the use, dispose, or transfer of a health corporation's surplus operating funds or funds from operating ancillary services.

Whereas

article 11.6 of the SPA incentivizes efficiency by private corporations and permits them substantial control over their operational surpluses, Bill 6 grants the government unlimited authority to regulate, prohibit, or restrict the use of such surpluses. Private corporations would lose the ability to direct the benefits of money saved through their innovation and efficiency for such purposes as providing additional services for patients or residents. And B ill 6 does not define ancillary service, and its potential scope of application is unknown.

It obviously extends to operations such as gift shops or hair salons, but it could also–could it also extend to operations such as the fundraising arm of an organization? Thirdly, and lastly, Bill 6 creates unnecessary new mechanisms for bureaucratic control over contractual arrangements for organizational leaders. With respect to health corporations, or designated health-care organizations, as with RHAs themselves, parallel provisions regarding hiring and compensating organizational leaders are contained within Bill 6 as follows.

The RHA can, subject to the minister's approval, establish policies on compensation payable to CEOs and other senior staff. The employers must submit employment contracts to the RHA for review. The contract is void unless the RHA confirms it is consistent with compensation policy. RHAs would also require, for the first time, the power to issue directions concerning the process for hiring the CEO or any other senior officer of a health corporation.

The concern is Bill 6 would create new mechanisms for bureaucratic control such as the issuance of policies on compensation and reviewing contracts that are not subject to constraints concerning t he issue of directions by RHAs which currently exist in The Regional Health Authorities Act. These constraints were enshrined in the legislation as a result of significant lobbying efforts by our members who were very concerned about the potential for intr usion into the autonomous governance of their organization by an unrestricted ability of the RHAs to issue directions.

To now be able to effectively circumvent these constraints through the issuance of policies is contrary to the principles adopted when the legislation was put in place. The new, unconstrained authority vested in the RHAs over the selection and compensation of senior leaders is an unprecedented interference in the autonomy of private health organizations. The direction-making powers of all–of RHAs will extend to the process for hiring CEOs and senior officers, a new and profound interference with the autonomy of boards of private organizations.

The RHAs are effectively authorized to engage in budget line item supervision, i.e., micromanagement of what senior officials are paid. A corporation may no longer be able to move funds within its block grant or draw on additional resources on its own to hire or retain leaders in light of the distinctive needs and requirements of each

82 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11, 2012 institution. The RHAs go beyond funders and setting objectives and standards to effectively controlling absolutely core aspects of internal governance, including the selection processes for leaders and determining their compensation.

The leverage that RHAs will have over the selection and compensation of leaders will undermine the ability of private organizations to select leaders who can be counted on to be vigorous and loyal advocates of the organization rather than pliant to the demands of the regional bureaucracies who can influence their initial hiring, reappointment or salary adjustments. * (18:40) Mr. Chairperson: I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Pronyk, but your time has expired. Is there leave of the committee to allow Mr. Pronyk to conclude his statement? [Agreed] Leave has been granted. You may proceed. Mr. Pronyk: Thank you.

I'm just on the conclusion as well. So, the conclusion: private health -care organizations are part of civil society. They consist of faith-based, non-profit organizations; secular non- profit organizations; and commercial operations. In addition to accountability to government regulations, they must respond to the needs and requirements of their owners, sponsors, supporters, and other stakeholders. Private institutions have their own distinctive channels of accountability, in addition to government.

Excessive government interference can impair the ability of organizations to respond to the needs and aspirations of their own constituencies. The government may be under the misimpression that it can afford to be less restrictive or less respectful of non-profits, because their investment is less mobile than that of the commercial sector. The reality is that intrusive and unfair treatment discourages investment of time, energy, and financial resources by supporters within the province.

Moreover, it presents a serious impediment to attracting much-needed investment in health care by national and international organizations. With exigent need everywhere, organizations including, specifically, non -profit organizations with a choice of where to invest will not be attracted by a province that does not respect the autonomy of the non- profit sector, does not respect its property rights and does not respect the sanctity of agreements. We take no position on those aspects of Bill 6 in which the government attempts to streamline and better manage its own bureaucracies.

We strongly oppose, however, Bill 6's attempt to increase the power of those very same bureaucracies at the expense of private corporations . In a democratic and pluralistic society, there must be space for private organizations to use their own resources and the talent, passion, and commitment of their own distinctive leaders, servants, and supporters, to find distinctive innovation and effec tive ways to increase the choice and quality of care available to patients. There's been no demonstration whatever that this unprecedented and unprincipled attack on private autonomy is justified by any practical need.

The government already has many too ls to address any particular problems that may arise. We are aware of no incidents which could not be addressed within the existing array of government authority where a private corporation declined to co- operate with government in addressing real problems. We, therefore, ask that Bill 6 not be passed in its present form. Instead, we request that it be revised to provide for the regulation and organization of RHAs only and any reference to private-health corporations be removed. Thank you. Mr. Chairperso n: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Pronyk.

We'll now move on to questions. The Honourable Ms. Howard –Oswald, sorry. Ms. Oswald. Ms. Oswald: Thank you, Mr. Pronyk, for your presentation and for those that assisted you in compiling the pres entation. I note the list that's attached to the back. I certainly understand that you've had discussions with those folks as well. Just a few comments, so that I can make sure that we're of the same understanding as we go forward. I want to assure you that, without question, we deeply value the work that faith -based organizations have done historically.

I'm sure it can be argued that you built the foundation for health care before medicare came along. You are critically important in our history, and you're critically important today. I want you to know that our view does not change as a result of Bill 6. I also want to emphasize that, of course, in 2001, we enshrined that respect into law, and that will not change. And that is, of course, that any directive an RHA may give a health

June 11, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 83 corporation must respect the unique role of faith - based facilities by ensuring three essential things, in my view: that they can respond to the spiritual and religious needs of their residents and patients; that they can provide care in a way that is consistent with the fundamental principles of their religion and faith; and that reaffirms that religious orga nizations can continue to own and operate their facilities, retain their identity and be governed by a board of directors.

I think there are a number of things that we can discuss, and I believe there will be ample opportunity to do that because many of the issues that you raised would rest, centrally, in the regulation making around this act which, in my view, we could not do without the contribution of faith-based organizations, where you would have a very strong voice. But I want to assure you, and thos e in attendance today, that this bill does not, in any way, say that your right as organizations to choose your CEO would be taken away. I think that that has been raised in discussion, and I don't think it's a true

interpretation of what is in the act. I think that there has been some questions about what you would be allowed to pay a CEO. That is not explicit in the act, but rather that a construct would be set up, a policy around which contracts would be contemplated. And as long as, you know, we didn't find ourselves as other places i n the nation where we have half -million and million -dollar salaries for CEOs –I know there would be people in this room that would think it was a good idea but, no, I don't think that we can do that. It's not the Manitoba way.

I think that the construct under which we're going to ask that contracts are built, you know, would just be consistent with what I believe Manitobans expect with publicly funded organizations. There's more to say but I needed to get those two things out because I think that there has been some miscommunication, and I wouldn't want that to happen. Mrs. Driedger: Thank you, Mr. Pronyk, for your comments and for your presentation. I, too, read into the legislation similar concerns that you have raised here too.

So, while the minister is indicating one thing here, reading the legislation does appear that things are far–much more wide open than what she is indicating right now. I want to ask you: Were you consulted at all about the bill before it was tabled? Mr. Pronyk: Not to my knowledge, no. Mrs. Driedger: Would it be fair to say that you were blindsided by what is coming forward in this bill around the hiring of CEOs and about what might happen to surpluses? Mr. Pronyk: It seems that's the case. Mr.

Gerrard: You've been pretty clear about the problems here in this legislation and, you know, it's hard to understand why the legislation was drafted in this fashion given the operation–to my knowledge has been–it'd be good if most of the homes under this act. So I would ask you, you know, what, you know, if you're dealing with a quality of care problem, are there not plenty of mechanisms for the government to ensure, or the RHAs to ensure , that things are being operated well? Mr. Pronyk: Yes, I would thi nk so.

You know, the Department of Health has standards –standards people to go out and check what PCHs are doing on a very regular basis. And these are all in place, and if they are implemented effectively they would, in fact, be able to address any of the issues that may rise regarding quality of care. Mr. Chairperson: Seeing that time for questions has expired, I'll thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Pronyk. I'll now call on the next presenter, Ms. Julie Turenne-Maynard, chair of the Interfaith Health Care Association of Manitoba. Ms. Turenne -Maynard, you have a written submission for the committee? Ms.

Julie Turenne-Maynard (IHCAM - Interfaith Health Care Association of Manitoba): Yes, I do. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, and you have assistants. Ms. Turenne -Maynard, you may proceed with your presentation. Ms. Turenne-Maynard: Thank you. Good evening everyone.

The Interfaith Health Care Association of Manitoba is a volunteer provincial association of representatives of the Catholic, Baptist, J ewish, Lutheran, Mennonite, Pentecostal, Salvation Army, Seventh Day Adventist and United Church faith groups that promote a Judeo- Christian approach to health-care service, based on fundamental and moral principles in the institutions we represent as well as in the community.

84 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11, 2012 The residents and clients we stand for, and in whom they entrust their care, are the elderly, the weak and the sick. I believe everyone present here this evening can attest to how important it is for our patients and elderly parents to be able to live and be cared for in an environment that is respectful of their language, culture and faith. The following are issues of concern to our members regarding Bill 6.

It contravenes the basic principles that have been negotiated in long- standing agreements with government and the regional health authorities, and it is tantamount to a breach of trust. * (18:50) Bill 6 is an affront to the legitimate and value - laden role and specific and significant contribution of the nine faith -based groups that own and operate health and social service organizations in Manitoba.

Bill 6 increases the ability of bureaucracies, the RHAs, to impose their will on private corporations in matters fundamental to their autonomy and the ability of private corporatio ns to carry out their distinctive missions and mandates to innovate and experiment, to choose and retain their own leaders and to connect with particular communities of supporters that can all be crucial to the success in providing care that fits the needs and aspirations of clients, residents, patients and their families. We believe that Bill 6 contravenes the basic principles negotiated and recognized by government.

The owners of our interfaith health and social care organizations have a long and distinc tive history in Manitoba that predates organized health and social care and the introduction of medicare, as stated by Minister Oswald. Their contribution to health care in Manitoba can be traced back well over a hundred years.

Our faith groups were succe ssful in building schools, orphanages, personal care homes, community -based agencies, as well as establishing the first hospitals in western Canada, all created for the purposes of serving the needs of the vulnerable, including women, children and the soci ally and economically disadvantaged.

In an effort to protect the rights of the boards of faith-based health and service organizations to own and govern these institutions, the government of Manitoba and members of IHCAM entered into a memorandum of unders tanding respecting the governance of faith-related health-care institutions in 1994, which included and agreed upon definition of governance.

In addition to the 1994 MOU, the faith- based Winnipeg hospitals and the faith-based personal care homes in Manitoba negotiated agreements on faith - related issues known as the faith -based agreements, which recognized key fundamental principles, including the right to own and manage assets of the health corporation; the right to determine the vision - mission values and the culture of the health and social care organization; the right to preserve specific powers of each organization as provided for in the bylaws, the authority to appoint its CEO for the organization, the responsibility, control and accountability for huma n resources, including the medical staff; the right to establish medical ethics for the organization; the right to appoint and remove any of the board of directors of the corporation; and the right to negotiate a financial plan with the RHAs to cover costs and the delivery of approved services.

The faith -based agreements were followed by the negotiation of the hospitals' operating agreements and the personal care homes service purchase agreements, both of which incorporated the principles contained in the FBA. Recognizing the potential for intrusion into the internal governance and faith -based autonomy of its members, IHCAM was instrumental in lobbying government when the RHA directive authority amendments to the RHA act were being introduced in 2001 to ens ure that checks and balances and certain limitations were built into the legislation to protect faith -based health organizations.

Bill 6, in its present form, is a breach of trust, as it clearly contravenes the basic principles of the faith-based agreement and subsequent operating and service purchase agreements in the following manner. The bureaucratic supervision of the employment contracts is an unprecedented intrusion into the internal management of private health health -care corporations. The direction-making part of our RHAs will extend the process for hiring CEOs and senior officers and new and profound interference with the autonomy of boards and of private organizations.

The RHAs are effectively authorized to engage in budget line item supervis ion, such as in the micromanagement of what senior officials can be paid.

June 11, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 85 The RHAs will be able to impose their will concerning compensation by a new mechanism contained in Bill 6, one of issuing policies, reviewing contracts and approving or disapproving them. This new mechanism for bureaucratic control is not subject to any of the constraints that apply when RHAs make policy by the direction mechanism, as contained in

section 29 of the RHA act, such as the duty to consult the health corporation, accommodate its concerns and try to first resolve problems by consultation, to provide reasons and refrain from breaching negotiated agreements with faith -based institutions that safeguard their autonomy. The levers of directing hiring processes opens the doors for RHAs to intrude without limitation on matters such as selection criteria and approving or disapproving levels of compensation that can be used in practice to pressure corporations or their leaders into bending to the government will in other respects.

The RHAs, in crafting and interpreting guidelines on compensation, may not appreciate or be sympathetic to the distinctive conditions in the private sector, such as the CEO of a faith -based organization may have to have qualifications such as theological as well as managerial experience that can go far beyond what is expected of an RHA executive.

The CEO may be required to respond skilfully and invest a great expenditure of time and energy to stakeholders, such as the general membership of the close-knit faith community and its lay and religious leaders, and he or she may not have the same j ob security or mobility within Manitoba as someone in the secular, governmental sector. Bill 6 would, potentially, prevent a health corporation from using either gove rnment grants or its own source of funds to hire, retain leaders who are essential to accomplishing both its secular and faith-based mission.

The current service purchase agreements with PCHs provide that the PCH health corporation retains the sole right t o appoint, evaluate and terminates it EDCO and all staff. The practical, effective RHA compensation policies and practices is contrary to the faith -based agreement to interfere with the ability of faith -based organizations to hire and retain leaders they need to effectively carry out both their secular and faith mission, or dampen the ability of such leaders to forthrightly advocate for their communities.

Bill 6's interference in the hiring processes and levels of compensation may, in practice, have the ef fect of seriously impairing the ability of faith -based organizations to fulfill the assurance in the faith - based agreement that the parties agreed. For example, the health corporation shall have the right to continue to respond to the spiritual and religious needs of its residents and ensure that its staff provide care and services in a manner which is consistent with the fundamental religious principles of their religious or faith to which the health corporation adheres.

Bill 6 would potentially prevent a private organization from using savings achieved by efficiency and innovation in its operations or from operating an ancillary service and using them for a variety of other purposes, such as providing additional services for patients and residents, returning the money to the faith community to be used for purposes such as assisting the needy or leadership training or using the money for capital projects.

The current PCH service purchase agreement recognizes the needs for incentives for efficient management and assures organizations that they may unconditionally repeat the greater of 50 per cent of its operational surplus and 2 per cent of its global budget. Ladies and gentlemen, Bill 6 is an affront to faith-based organizations. Existing negotiated agreements already contain provisions for dealing with the hiring of CEOs and other staff as well as the use of surplus funds.

The intrusive measures contained in Bill 6 are a major affront to the significant contribution made by religious orders and other faith communities in the areas of volunteerism, sweat equity, the significant investment of money, charitable endeavours and serving people on the margins of society. There are compelling reasons why the principles enunciated in the faith -based operating and service purchase agreements are in place and must be preserved and not summarily expunged by the enactment of Bill 6.

These principles are important because they recognize the many distinctive strengths that private corporations and their leaders may have over government bureaucracies in understanding their supporters and their patients, residents, and in finding distinctive and innovative ways to serve them. A broader accountability mandate on the part of owners, governing boards and their executive leaders

86 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11, 2012 towards the community, served peers, the RHAs and the faith communities. Boards and their executive leaders must be able to influence an organizational culture, ensuring that it is caring and compassionate while focusing on the delivery of health services that best meet the needs of the people of the community it serves. Bill 6 will significantly impair their ability to advocate effectively, particularly if RHAs are given unfettered powers to determine hiring practices, employment terms and conditions, et cetera.

The principles contained in agreements recognize the importance of being reflective of and responsive to local culture and unique population needs, creating a mosaic rather than the melting pot of approaches to care. These principles recogniz e the ability to create partnerships across political lines in between diverse community organizations and the ability to engage distinct cultural and faith communities in order to call forth health -care vocations and inspire a communal commitment to carin g for those in need among others. Will restrictions of the use of profits be imposed on for-profit organizations?

Why would government treat for-profits with so much more respect than the non-profits?

In conclusion, the members of the Interfaith Health Care Association of Manitoba ask that government acknowledge the long history of service our members have provided to Manitobans and respect the carefully wrought agreements, such as the service purchase agreements for PCHs, operating agreements for hospit als and the faith -based agreement that recognize and protect essential aspects of the rights of private organizations to control their own property, to govern themselves, to select and compensate their leaders and to carry out their unique missions.

We as k in the strongest possible terms that the intrusive aspects of Bill 6 not proceed and the provisions relating to private health corporations be removed. Their withdrawal, we stress, would not in any way preclude the government from proceeding with those a spects of Bill 6 that involve the organization and accountability of RHAs rather than private organizations. Thank you. * (19:00) Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. We'll now move on to questions. Ms. Oswald: Yes, thank you very m uch for your presentation.

It's comprehensive and certainly does provide me with a number of issues on which I am committed to reflect deeply. I wanted to add also that the issue concerning the surpluses, I believe that there has been some concern about the

interpretation of that, and I want to clarify that the legislation does not say that faith -based health organizations will be required to give back the surplus, but rather, it suggests much what Mr. Friesen was suggesting earlier this evening, that there be a report about what is to be done with the surplus funds. Times certainly are, today, where the public demands more and more accountability for funds that they are providing through their taxes and so forth. And so we are asking in Bill 6 that inform ation be provided, be made publicly available, about what is to become of these funds.

The bill doesn't say faith- based organizations shan’t be able to use those funds. So I just wanted to be clear about that, and I did have a question. This is going to sound cheekier than I mean it to be so let me put that caveat on it. I'm wondering if you believe–or what you believe, if any, might be a cap or a ceiling on the kind of salary that Manitobans would maybe expect a CEO of a personal care home to earn today, and should that be made public? Ms. Turenne- Maynard: It really depends on the facility that they're managing.

We have some of our institutions where one CEO is taking care of two or even three, and in circumstances such as that, I think it's important that their salary be reflected on it. So you can't go overboard, just like anything else in this province, but we do need to be cognizant of some facilities requiring some very strong capabilities from the CEO in which we're asking to not only manage the facil ity but to also adhere to the vision, mission and the faith -based side of things, which forces them to do a lot of extracurricular activities. Ms. Oswald: Yes, and thank you very much.

And I would certainly concur, and we believe the legislation reflects that there are–there's a real range of responsibilities that our CEOs are undertaking just in terms of sheer numbers of patients, numbers of facilities, and I want to be clear. The vast majority, 99.99 per cent, of these individuals are doing a splendid job every single day, but I think what we're

June 11, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 87 wrestling with a little bit, and what the public indeed, you know, wrestles with and consequently asks us, is there to be any sort of limit to what we pay CEO s, and is it appropriate for, you know an 80- bed PCH CEO to be earning more than the CEO of Health Sciences Centre or Boundary Trails Hospital? I guess these are the kinds of questions that we're wrestling with in here. I wondered if you had a comment on that. Ms.

Turenne-Maynard: I think those are things that we should be discussing together in order to be able to communicate in lieu of seeing a bill coming through where none of us were even aware that it was coming through, and in that, we can have those discussions so that it works well for our institutions as well as the province of Manitoba. Mrs. Driedger: Thank you for your presentation. Obviously, there are a number of agencies and personal care homes and organizations out there that have read and interpreted this new bill in certain ways, and you're all obviously speaking with the same view.

It appears that many of you are afraid that everything you've worked for over the last number of years is being stripped away by this legislation and that the rug is being pulled out from under the faith-based organizations. What do you think should happen right now with those parts of the bill that you're concerned about?

I take it that you're not opposed to amalgamation of RHAs because that is–you know, an attempt to move towards transparency and accountability, but there's a whole other whack of clauses in there that is certainly raising a lot of concern amongst non- profit personal care homes and faith-based organizations. What should happen with those parts of the bill? Ms.

Turenne-Maynard: We're asking that th ey be extracted and then, in due process, have conversations and negotiations with the Interfaith Health Care Association of Manitoba, with the Catholic Health Association of Manitoba, with MARCHE, to ensure that all provisions are being looked at in the proper way. Mr. Chairperson: Time has expired on the question portion. I do have two more speakers on this. Is there leave of the committee to allow the two additional questions? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, leave has not been granted. Ms. Turenne-Maynard: Thank you. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Turenne-Maynard for your presentation. I'll now call on the next presenter, Mr. Daniel Lussier, Chair of the Catholic Health Association of Manitoba. Mr. Lussier, do you have a written submission for the committee? Mr. Daniel Lussier ( CHAM - Catholic Health Association of Manitoba): Yes, I do. Mr. Chairperson: And you may proceed with your presentation, then, when ready. Mr. Lussier: Eh bien, merci beaucoup d'avoir permis quelque temps de vous donner quelque pensées. Translation Well, thank you very much for allowing some time to share a few thoughts with you.

English Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to speak here toni ght. My name is Daniel Lussier, I'm the CEO of the Catholic Health Corporation of Manitoba and chair of an umbrella group, the Catholic Health Association of Manitoba, CHAM, for short. I'm here tonight to share CHAM's concern that portions of Bill 6 will make it increasingly more difficult for us to continue to do the good work that our members have been doing in the community for hundreds of years. It appears to us that the core of Bill 6 was created to better manage regional health authorities, which we have no comment on.

But, found deeper in this bill, the government has added bits of legislation that we feel would change the way we work in partnership with the Manitoba government. Bill 6 would greatly enhance the control of government over aspects of our operations that are absolutely essential to our autonomy. This includes interference with such matters as our processes for selection–for selecting leaders and for compensating them. As the Catholic Health Care Association of Manitoba has stated, in Ca tholic health organizations, it is the chain of mission that actualizes the mission of the corporation.

The chain of mission links, in an unfettered way, the members of the corporation, the sponsors, the board of

88 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11, 2012 directors and the corporation's CEO. It mai ntains a continuous bond of mission throughout the staff, volunteers, physicians and communities. It is for this reason that recognition for the board and CEO as independent leaders in carrying out the mission of the individual members within the system is a fundamental provision of Catholic health care. Bill 6 also includes control over the operating surpluses we achieve through our own distinctive innovations and efficiencies.

These kinds of intrusions are inconsistent with provisions for autonomy in se rvice purchase agreements, the faith - based agreement, the respect previously provided in RHA legislation for such agreements, the principle of freedom of religious expression recognized by the Charter, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in cases such as Ampsillin [phonetic]. Our members have been reliable and resourceful 'organijations', delivering health and social services to thousands of Manitobans for many, many years.

The changes added to the end of Bill 6 that relate to independent and non- profit agencies will affect the good work we do for the community. Our distinctive faith-based mission, the community support that rallies behind it, and our leadership are all crucial factors in enabling us, in our own distinctive way, to support the delivery of front-line care to those are ill and suffering.

We cannot make our own innovative and distinctive contribution to the health-care system of this province if our autonomy is constantly eroded and we are subjected to even more pressure to act as just another branch operation of one centralized provincial bureaucracy. We hope the members of this committee will review those sections, remove them and allow us to address your needs outside of hard- and-fast legislation. Well, I'm going to give you a bi t of history of how long we've been working alongside government to provide compassionate care for Manitobans.

As an umbrella group, CHAM represents health and social service organizations spread around the province, that we all call communities of service . Our communities of service are delivered in five main areas of care: primary and community health care, acute care, long -term care, comprehensive services to people living with developmental disabilities, housing and social services.

Under CHAM –under th e CHAM umbrella we represent 18 communities of service and their foundations, 9,500 full -time and part -time employees, 1,700 volunteers, over 200 volunteer board members that we appoint, who then oversee $460 million in combined annual operating budgets. * (19:10) Some of our organizations are large and you'll be very familiar with them. They include St. Boniface General Hospital, Misericordia, St. Amant Centre, Holy Family Home, Actionmarguerite, and Marymound.

Other organizations are Sara Riel, Flavie-Laurent, Abri Marguerite, smaller services created more recently because we saw a need in our community. We often work with government to step up to those in need today, like people with mental disorders and the poor in our community. Most of these organizations were originally started by religious orders, like the Grey Nuns, the Oblate Sisters, the Sisters Servants of Mary Immaculate, the Benedictines, the Sisters of Misericordia, and the Sisters of St. Joseph.

They created, built, and sustained everything from our very first hospital on the banks of the Red River just over 140 years ago to services for new immigrants landing in Winnipeg today. They did this because they saw a need in our community, and it was the mission to provide people with love, care, and compassion. If I can just pause the history lesson, I would suggest that if we're all–if all of us in this room were looking for a vision of health care today, we would only need to look at their example: love, care, and compassion.

And in fact, it's w hy we have so many committed volunteers today that support the health- care budget with their volunteer hours, because they also believe our institutions can be places of love, care, and compassion. And they provide that every day, bolstering the health-care budget. Years ago, the sisters knew that their numbers were dwindling, but they still had the responsibility to ensure their good works would continue to provide compassionate care. In the case of the Grey Nuns, for example, they created a new organization and transferred the responsibility to govern their goods works to lay people.

And the Catholic Health Corporation, or CHCM, was born to do exactly that. Today, CHCM is responsible for appointing the boards of directors to several non- profit independent agencies in Manitoba. We, as our partner faith -based health facilities, seek out the best members of our community who also believe in creating compassionate health care and that it contributes to efficient and cost -effective health care. Simply put, we know when we treat people with respect, they

June 11, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 89 have a more positive experience in our health -care system. These community board members take their jobs of continuing the tradition of compassion in care very seriously. These volunteer men and women serve the Manitoba taxpayers who provide government with funding that our members steward very carefully. At CHCM, as within the other members of CHAM, we also provide these organizations with an accountability framework.

We tell them that, in keeping with over 600 years–those are all the years of collective service of all those religious congregations I mentioned earlier –with over 600 years of collective service tradition, we expect them to continue to respond to unmet needs in the health system and community; stri ve for excellence by developing quality indicators that can help measure where we are and how to get better; be sustainable and make sure we can be as efficient as possible to get the work done while using resources wisely, including being accountable and transparent, not only to government but to our staff, the people we serve, and the families and people we care for; and be ethical in all we do.

With all this, we feel that all these organizations presenting today have been very valuable partners in the delivery of care here in Manitoba. We know that the traditions of our organizations have made us innovative and creative. Every day we find unique solutions to problems because we have a deeply rooted responsibility to serve our community. Increased legislation brings a real risk of losing that innovative drive. It is a difference between a relationship with a government that manages and operates or a government that seeks accountability and monitoring. We prefer the latter.

In conclusion, our members we re disappointed to see portions of Bill 6 that could change the work our dedicated community volunteers do every day in things like hiring senior management and how resources are spent. As stated before in the other presentations, there are already many wa ys and means that government and our facilities can come together in a co -operative spirit to address issues. The service purchase agreements are one forum to find common ground in the service of the public. We urge, don't treat a special cause like a common cause.

There may have been issues at one or two institutions, but were they not resolved through existing legislative framework and the co-operation of the health-care corporation involved? And if not, surely the best approach is one that is finely foc used on whatever change is needed to address a particular problem, not to create sweeping new powers for bureaucracy that expenses –at the expense of fundamental principles of long- standing agreements.

We respectfully request that those provisions related to health agencies like ours be removed from Bill 6 so that we can continue to work with government and build the vision of compassionate health care together. We would like to have an opportunity to have further discussion with government about how it wants to hold third parties like us accountable, because we want to continue to want to be a valued partner. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Lussier, for your presentation. We'll now move on to questions. Ms. Oswald: Merci, Monsieur Lussier.

I just got in trouble from the Chair for talking too long, so I'm going to thank you for your presentation, reflect on it, and allow others to ask questions. Mrs. Driedger: I'd like to thank you for the presentation, and a couple of questions. I guess the first one would be that, as you were reading this legislation, is it your

interpretation from reading the legislation that it looks like the government or the RHA could claw back any surplus that you might have at the end of a year? Mr. Lussier: Well, it certainly gives them the ability to look at that as an option. I think, clearly, the way it reads today, yes. I want to go back to, maybe, some fundamentals about this. I mean, this is about transparency and accountability, and I think all our organizations, and government as well, is quite wise to want to do things to make sure we can tighten that up. It's not only here in Manitoba; it's across the country.

It's just we need to find ways to balance transparency and accountability with control. And we go back to the two control pieces for us that are – have already been negotiated in agreements –are provisions around the hiring and selecting of CEOs and, of course, the use of surpluses. So, again, you know, we're interested in dialogue around tr ansparency and accountability, for sure; that's a responsible thing to do. But we feel it's very

90 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11, 2012 important that we find a way to balance that off with control, and I think my presentation was clear. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for your presentation. Just two points. I mean, one of the concerns, I suspect, is even though the minister may provide some reassurance that she's not going to grab your surpluses, that the legislation leaves that open to happen under a future minister.

And second point would be that you have emphasized, as have others, that the importance of the present structure is that you can be more innovative and creative than, potentially, under this new arrangement which is in this act. Can you perhaps give us an example of the innovation and creativity and why that's important to the work that you do? Mr. Lussier: I mean, this is –I don't know if I'll be answering the question that you're looking for, but, I mean, for me, it's fairly obvious.

If we work in a system that doesn't allow an organi zation to be innovative and creative with those resources, and if it has surpluses that it then can place towards initiatives that they feel might enhance care in their organization–for example, might be spiritual care, might be ethics –if you take that awa y, then what's the motivation to actually be efficient? Here's your money, spend it. I don't know if that's a signal that's healthy for organizations.

I think that issue is an interesting one, and, again, I would submit, it's very much important for us to be able to drive our organizations as best they can to be efficient and, at the same time, hopefully, take some risks with those surpluses where maybe government may not want to take some risks. And that's decisions that we feel our community- grounded boa rd members, who are in our community, who are on our boards, who understand the patients, understand the clients, can make some really good decisions.

And I think that's, again, a great balance between transparency, accountability, and allowing that control to continue to manifest itself in our organizations. Mrs. Driedger: If the government doesn't pay attention to the presentations that were made tonight and listen to what you're asking for, what do you think is going to happen if they force all parts of this legislation forward? Mr. Lussier: Well, I think all three organizations have already expressed a grave concern. I think it would be a disappointing– very, very disappointing outcome.

Personally, I would be disappointed on behalf of the mission that w e're involved with. I go back with the Grey Nuns to 1844, and to have it come to that would be kind of disappointing. But, having said that, I can't give you a clear answer on that. * (19:20) Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, I thank you for the presentation, Mr. Lussier. Bill 8–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Use of Child Safety Seats) Mr. Chairperson: I now call on the next presenter, presenting on Bill 8, Dr. Lynne Warda, Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, Injury Prevention Program. Dr.

Warda, do you have a written submission for the committee? Ms. Lynne Warda (Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, Injury Prevention Program): No. Mr. Chairperson: You may proceed, then, when ready, with your presentation. Ms. Warda: This presentation is on behalf of the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority's Injury Prevention Program, which has the mandate to prevent injuries among Winnipeg residents. One of our priority areas is child occupant protection, particularly booster seats. I've been the medical director for this program, also called IMPACT, since 1998.

I also practise as an emergency physician at the Children's Hospital where we see very serious and disabling injuries in children who could've been much better protected by a booster seat. We were very pleased to see the introduction of Bill 8, which will facilitate booster seat use by allowing regulations to specify age and physical characteristics for child restraint devices. This will allow new regulations to specify car seat stages according t o what current scientific evidence supports. Despite a large body of research demonstrating the effectiveness of booster seats, rates of booster seats are very low.

Of all motor vehicle occupants, children four to eight years of age are the least likely to be properly restrained, with only 20 per cent using a booster seat. We have confirmed this in Winnipeg, where our rates are 20.5 per cent.

June 11, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 91 Most parents not using a booster seat are not aware of the height recommendation of four foot nine or age nine and the rationale for using a booster seat. Many have no idea that children can sustain spinal cord injuries that could be prevented by the use of a booster seat. Over 80 per cent of parents indicate they would use a booster seat if there were a law. Booster seats significantly reduce the risk of injury and death when compared to seat belt use.

The magnitude of this effect is as much as an 82 per cent reduction in side -impact injuries, 45 per cent reduction in serious injury and 14 per cent reduction in injuries overall. In closing, we would welcome the opportunity to participate in the development of these new regulations, as there is significant evidence that could make vehicle travel safer for each stage, from infancy onwards. Thank you. Mr. Chairpers on: Thank you, very much, Dr. Warda, and we'll now move on to questions. Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Healthy Living, Seniors and Consumer Affairs ): I'd like to thank you very much, Dr.

Warda, for your advice on the moving forward of this and your work, (

a) on the announce–at the announcement, putting very hard science into basic, understandable English. I appreciate that. I thank you for your advocacy in this area. It's been a long time and I thank you for your hard work and your perseverance. Mrs. Driedger: And I'd certainly echo that as well. I think that Manitoba's certainly learning as we've gone along and we've found that there are better ways to do it.

The science is there–the research –you know, as you said to imagine it as a little child that might end up with a spinal cord injury or become a quadriplegic because they weren't in a proper seat is pretty devastating. So, just thanks for the persis tence and advocacy to move this forward and appreciate that. Mr. Gerrard: Thanks for all your efforts, and we're finally there. The–one of the comments that you made was an 82 per cent reduction in inside injuries. Is that what you said? Mr. Chairperson : [interjection] Dr. Warda? You may go ahead. Ms. Warda: Sorry.

Yes, 82 per cent reduction for side-impact collisions, so the effectiveness varies, depending on the direction of the collision, as well as the place that the child is seated in the vehicle. I n all types of collisions, they are –have been shown to be effective. It's just they're more effective in certain collisions than in others. Mr. Gerrard: A pretty dramatic effect and it's a good illustration of why this is so important. Thanks. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, thank you, Dr. Gerrard. I'd like to –before moving on, I'd like to ask the will of the committee if there's leave –I see Dr.

Warda's also presenting on Bill 37. Is there leave of the committee to consider or to hear her presentation on Bill 37 right away? [Agreed] Bill 37–The Highway Traffic Amendment and

Summary Convictions Amendment Act (Bicycle Helmets) Mr. Chairperson: You may present –you may proceed, then, when ready, Dr. Warda, thank you. Ms. Lynne Warda (Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, Injury Prevention Program): I'll start by saying we were very pleased to see the introduction of Bill 37 to make bike helmets mandatory for children and youth. This progressive step forward will save lives and reduce serious head injuries in young Manitoba cyclists. Over the years we worked with many partners across the province on safe cycling initiatives.

In 2010, we launched the Ride2Win cycling safety campaign for children. We also have conducted observational studies on bicycle helmet use s ince 1996. We have supported the Province's efforts to reduce disparities by making helmets available to all families in Manitoba through a low -cost helmet program and through KidSport. At the WRHA we have made free helmets available to lower income families in Winnipeg who would not be able to afford them otherwise.

By introducing this legislation, the government has demonstrated that it understands how important helmets are in the face of a fall from a bike or a collision. We are very pleased that the government is committed to protecting child cyclists through this new bill. However, we would like to propose that

92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11, 2012 legislation addressing helmet use for all cyclists be considered. There are number of points to consider that would support this. Adult cyclists are hospitalized as often as children and youth. In fact, they are overrepresented in the most serious collisions. More than 50 per cent of Manitoba cycling deaths and more than 50 per cent of serious hospitalizations are adults. Between 2001 and 2010, there were 102 major trauma admissions to Health Sciences Centre for cyclists; 64 of these were adults; 41 had a head injury, and only seven were wearing a helmet.

Most of the in-hospital deaths were adults. Adults have a very strong influence on helmet use in children. Children riding with helmeted adults are more than twice as likely to wear a helmet than those riding with non -helmeted adults. Our local helmet studies show a wearing rate of 100 per cent for children riding with helmeted adults, three t imes the average rate. One of the best ways to protect a child is to protect their parent. Children whose parent has a brain injury are more likely to experience post - traumatic stress, depression, and emotional, behavioural and learning problems.

Finally, research shows that without legislation, the highest rate of helmet use you can expect is around 40 per cent. Our observational research shows that helmet use has increased from 23 per cent to 41.9 per cent between 1996 and 2011, but rates are levelling off. Helmet -use rates are highest in provinces with all -ages legislation. So legislation is the next logical stop –step in increasing the number of cyclists of all ages wearing helmets. In closing, we commend the Manitoba government for introducing this bill.

We look forward to future increases in helmet use through all- ages legislation, and we will continue to support a broad, safe-cycling and active transportation strategy promoting cycling for health and many other community benefits. Thank you. Mr. C hairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Dr. Warda. We'll now move on to questions from the committee. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for making a strong plug for having adults included. It could be managed with a simple amendment to this bill, whi ch I think is what you're trying to recommend. Is that right? Ms.

Warda: Yes, we would fully support an amendment towards all-ages legislation. Mr. Rondeau: I'd like to thank you, Dr. Warda, for the WRHA. I understand you're also working with the Red Riv er Ex to give out about 600 or 800 helmets again this year. So thank you very much for your work on that and showing kids how to use them. So I'd like to say thank you to that. On the whole education, I know you've been working with KidSport, you've been working with Red River Ex and others.

Do you see other incentive- based things to get kids active in wearing the helmets again this summer before the law actually goes into place? Ms. Warda: Yes, there is incentive -based programs that we have done in different parts of Manitoba. We call them caught you using your head.

And we're just awaiting on some –the final news on federal funding for us to do a very major project in Manitoba starting in the coming weeks, we really hope, t o be able to make that sort of a program widespread across the province for helmet use, not only for cycling, but also for skateboarding, inline skating and the other wheeled sports. * (19:30) So, absolutely, there is evidence to show that providing incentives to children and youth hel ps to increase the helmet use, even when there is legislation. So it can be a –sort of a companion strategy regardless of the status of legislation. Mr. Ron Schuler ( St.

Paul ): Yes. And thank you very much for the presentation. This is something that I have supported since being elected here as a member of the Legislature, and it also impacts me directly. Could you, just for the committee –you're somebody who's done a lot of work on this, you certainly have done a lot of the research. How do you enforce a pi ece of legislation like this? Like, at the best of times, my teenagers listen to me about 10 per cent of the time and, like, how do you enforce this?

Like, if you're not around and your kid jumps on the bicycle and cycles down the street, like, you know, what do the police do to this child? How do we enforce it? I'd be interested in hearing.

June 11, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 93 Ms. Warda: So, being one of the later jurisdictions to adopt helmet legislation, we've got –we've had a lot of discussions and lots to learn from our–the other jurisdictions in Canada. For one, the public needs to know that there is a law. They need to know that there is the potential for them to be caught and to have a fine. Without a fine, the laws tend not to be very effective–or that without the threat of a fine, not that there –any jurisdiction does a lot of fining for non-helmet use. So first of all, the public needs to be aware.

It's a lever for parents; it's a lot easier in those teen years for parents to be able to say, as the default, it's the law; it's not my opinion, it's not your –the other parents opinion, it's actually the law. And then, finally, there does need to be periodic enforcement. So BC has, for –in particular, has been very successful in raising helmet use well above 90 per cent in most of t he province. However, like anything, 'wif' you back off on the enforcement, the rates do drop off, so they're small blitzes. You know, we've got contacts in BC that we chat about this quite often.

It's not too onerous and the police are very much on boar d. But you do have to have some degree of enforcement. Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Thank you, Dr. Warda. And, you know, congratulations for the advocacy you have done on this issue, because I really do think that the advocacy that has come forward from yourself; from Dr.

Patrick McDonald, the head of pediatric neurosurgery; all the third -year pediatric residents who were out there getting a petition done; all of the pediatric and neurosciences nurses that got involved with emails; a number of other doctors that got involved in sending emails forward–I think your voices were heard. And, you know, you took it from a perspective, certainly, that made a lot of sense because you were looking at the effects on kids and it was interesting.

Just the other da y when we heard about a little 8-year-old boy that CBC was reporting on, that fell and his helmet protected him from a head injury, just brings it all home. And certainly the statistics that– you know, I've met with Dr. McDonald and certainly what he provided was very helpful. And the public comments that all of you made, I think, really you should take a lot of credit for moving this issue forward in Manitoba so that we can better protect kids. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Seeing no further questions, thank you very much, Dr. Warda, for your presentations.

Bill 33–The Election Financing Act and Elections Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: Now the call of the next presenter. I call on Roy McPhail, private citizen, to speak to Bill 33. Mr. McPhail, do you have a wri tten submission for the committee? Mr. Roy McPhail (Private Citizen): No, I don't. It's oral. Mr. Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation when ready. Mr. McPhail: Good evening and thank you for the opportunity. I appreciate the hours that our e lected officials put in these kinds of presentations, so I shan’ t be long. The aspect of Bill 33 that I'm focused in on is

section 81, decisions on allowance and regulations relating to the funding of the political process. I focus in on that because I know that there's a great variance in all jurisdictions as to how the political process is funded and that that process and how we fund the political process is highly controversial and critical, and the reason I feel that it's critical is that the voters ar e watching us when we make those decisions, and so we should be setting up a process in Manitoba that we're proud of. And I'm generally pleased with the direction that Manitoba has been taking.

Particularly, I was impressed when the NDP government brought in the banning of corporate and union donations. I think that was a very progressive step for us, and I think I'd like to see us go further down that road. So, relating to the

section in question, I see that the wording of the new act is favourable to my perspective, specifically, clause 2, under factors for the appointment of the commissioner and what the commissioner can consider in determining the financing of the political process.

Section (

b) says that that commissioner can consider a number of factors: the expenses that the political parties incur, the amount of support those political parties have, and any other factor. So, if you will indulge me, I'll speak past you to that commissioner, who, I hope, will read my

94 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11, 2012 submission, and listen to what I believe to be a important factor for that commissioner to consider. And that is the enhancement of the relationship between the elected and the electorate so that whatever factors he or she determines will cause that relationship to strengthen, not weaken, and a measure of that strengthening of the relationship will be an improvement in voter turnout, an improvement in volunteership to political parties, and various other criteria that we could use to assess success.

So, over time, if the commissioner takes on that role and sees his or her role as not only compensating the parties and permitting the parties to survive, but go beyond that to saying how do we get the relationship improved, then Manitoba can be a model for other jurisdictions.

I would go so far as to propose that the next time we amend The Election Financing Act, it actually be changed from election financing to the democracy enhancement act and that we maintain the audit function of the act but that, in addition to the audit function, we charge Elections Manitoba with the responsibility for working with the parties and the electorate to ensure that we reverse the trend towards cynicism and decay of that relationship, and we have people donating to political parties with the same enthusiasm they now donate to United Way and other causes.

That's when we're truly solid in our democracy and not concerned about the preservation of that. With that, I'll conclude and invite questions. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. McPhail. We'll now move on to questions from the committee. Ms. Howard: Well, thank you very much for your presentation and thanks for coming out and engaging in some democracy tonight. I think these –this is a very important part of the process when you come forward and tell us what you think of the legislation. I also just wanted –I know you were trying to speak through us to the commissioner.

In the bill, there is a provision for the commissioner to have –to invite public presentations. They can determine how they want to do that, but certainly in the past other commissions that deal with electoral issues like the Boundaries Commission has had some level of public presentation, so you may get a chance to speak to the commissioner yourself when that time comes. * (19:40) Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. McPhail, thank you for coming tonight to make your presentation and certainly for waiting your turn.

I know sometimes when you have to sit for an hour or so and wait it can be difficult, but thank you for staying and doing this. And I appreciate what you have been saying here tonight. The particular clause that you're referring to in the bill, the role of the commissioner is something that we are looking at because we're curious just exactly what the role of this–a commissioner may be, and what –who the commissioner may be, whether they'll be biased one way or the other.

And, certainly, things that you did say about permitting parties to survive, I think the issue with contributing to political parties is, as you say, it is controversial, and people have different opinions on that. And whether or not this is the same contribution as we've seen in past, or whether it's something new and different, allowing compliance within the electoral process which is–can be expensive, I guess, but certainly the other thing that you did mention is choice.

And I guess my question would be to you, when people make donations to political parties, should that not be their choice or should it be legislated? Mr. McPhail: Great question, and I appreciate, as I sat for that hour, that is a fraction of the time that you sit in committee. That there was a number of issues where there's all-party agreement to basically coerce the citizens, for instance, to wear bicycle helmets. So, idea lly, we maximize choice in our society.

And so from my perspective, as I look ahead 10 years and ask myself, how has Manitoba progressed on this aspect of choice, I'd say there's so much voluntary money flowing into the political parties that the commissioner wonders if there should be any public monies allocated.

In fact, at this point, I see that there seems to be a modest amount of money available for advertising during election campaigns and some activities between elections, but the more we can stren gthen political parties to tune their messages and get them out to the citizens, the better, and the more we can have that as a voluntary aspect, the better. And I would encourage all parties to view the education of

June 11, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 95 the electorate, which needs to be by a non- partisan party such as Elections Manitoba, as an excellent mechanism for improving that participation so that when each party solicits those voluntary contributions they're–they have a receptive audience, someone who's already learned that they are responsible for the preservation of the democracy within their jurisdiction and they have a duty to support that process. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for your presentation. Now, I just want to give you sort of an opportunity.

You talk about enhancing the relationship between the electorate and the electors, and I think this is fundamentally very important. Take a moment to tell us what sorts of things you think can and should be done to do that. Mr. McPhail: Those dreaded open-ended questions, Jon. I guess, again, that citizen participation is growing all around the world, particularly through social networking, and I see huge opportunities here for the elected to tap into the new technologies.

And I'm in the midst of reading Wael Ghonim's book about how the Egyptian pe oples got pretty excited about their government and acted on social networks to cause change. I don't think we're in a 'nascient' revolutionary stage here, but I think we can still find those tools and with sufficient motivation and direction, we can engage the population to a vastly greater degree now than we ever used to be able to, and the elected could easily find that rather than presentations in a committee room, there's quite massive participation occurring. We need to fund that.

We need to teach the elected what is available and the electorate are already using those tools, so we need to direct some of that energy into the political process. That's one top-of-mind idea. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. McPhail. The time for q uestions has expired. Thank you very much for your presentation. Now call on our next presenter James Beddome, Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba. James Beddome, Green Party of Manitoba. Seeing as that Mr. Beddome is not here, his name will be dropped to the bottom of the list and called at the end.

Bill 34–The Public-Private Partnerships Transparency and Accountability Act Mr. Chairperson: Now call on the next presenter, Councillor Ross Eadie, city councillor for the Mynarski Ward. Councillor Ross Eadie, city councillor for the Mynarski Ward. Seeing that Mr. Eadie is not present, his name will be dropped to the bottom of the list and called at the end. There's been a request for the next presenter, Russ Wyatt, c ouncillor, City of Winnipeg, to combine his presentation with presenter No. 8, Jeff Browaty, city councillor, City of Winnipeg.

Is there leave of the committee to allow them to present together? [Agreed] Councillors, do you have written submission for the committee? Floor Comment: No. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. You may proceed with your presentations when ready. Mr. Jeff Browaty ( City of Winnipeg): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. The City of Winnipeg and municipalities across Manitoba are struggling to provide quality infrastructure to all Manitobans, the same Manitobans that you serve.

P3s are one of the very effective tools that we found to provide quality infrastructure, because they provide cost certainty, they provide guaranteed risk transfer, maintenance schedules that can't be passed off due to short -term budget goals, they avoid construction inflation, and they still receive full due diligence. The City of Winnipeg has been very successful using P3 procurement. The Bill Clement parkway is maintained to exceptionally high standards compared to other Manitoba roadways.

The Chief Peguis Trail, the first project in Canada to receive money from a federal P3 program through PPP Canada, that's a new federal Crown corporation, and the Disraeli Freeway–I was shocked the other day, I just asked the question; timelines that they provided me in April of last year, they are being kept. They are on time right now. Knock on something, but –knock on wood. But, again, Disraeli is on time. Taxpayers are getting value for money. That's what, effectively, we need to make sure that we provide our mutual constituents. The Province of

96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11, 2012 Manitoba, by comparison, has had some troubles in the past with major infrastructure procurement. Look at the Manitoba Hydro headquarters – millions of dollars over budget. The south Perimeter Highway bridge, how many times was that project rebuilt and rebuilt, and we still don't know where that is in the courts. That's still out there. The Red River Floodway project –$135 million -plus over budget plus six bridges that didn't get built under the original budget. Where's the cost certainty? Where's the guarantee for the taxpayers of Manitoba?

With P3s, it's about buying an end result. That's what Manitobans want to see. Here's where we are; here's how we get there. Ingenuity is huge. With the Chief Peguis Tra il, for example, an underpass was added at Rothesay. The public servants, they figured the best way to do it was with a really big pumping station. The leading–the proponent that was successful in completing the Chief Peguis Trail, they were able to find a way to use gravity, a retention pond and as much smaller pumping station.

They made them the lead proponent on it, saving the project millions of dollars and still providing flood– or major rainfall protection beyond anything else that currently exists in the city of Winnipeg. * (19:50) Now the question is and the name of the particular bill in front of you today is The Public-Private Partnerships Transparency and Accountability Act. Well, if it's about transparency and openness, where was that on this particular piece of legislation? Why wasn't the City of Winnipeg adequately consulted? Where was consultation with the industry groups that are involved in this?

Where was the consultation with the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association? Where was consultat ion with the leading groups that have been involved in these projects that have been so successful in Manitoba? The Chief Peguis Trail, by comparison, had extensive public consultation. Originally the public was asked, what did you want to see in this project? They said, we don't want to see a signalled intersection at Rothesay. We found a way, using P3 Canada money, to do an underpass there.

They said they didn't want to see the very popular Northeast Pioneers Greenway, an active transportation trail, severed by a major arterial roadway. They found a way to add a pedestrian trail there –a pedestrian bridge there, within budget. For the Disraeli, it was going to cripple northeast Winnipeg for 18 months. They wanted to close the whole thing down for 18 mont hs. Despite what the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) might tell you, it wasn't that member that quit and left for Ottawa in the middle of the whole thing. It was people like the MLA for –not Springfield, now, St. Paul, who got involved with it.

The MLA for River East. She may have been a little quieter, but the MLA for Rossmere was involved. And, in fact, Mr. Chair, it was your predecessor, Gary Doer, who was very actively involved with the mayor of Winnipeg. I think the two most involved people, Mayor Sam Katz, and the mayor of–and former Premier Doer that got the job done to find the additional funding using very innovative P3 processes to find a way to keep the Disraeli open during construction. 18 months of traffic gridlock eliminated thanks to innovativ e thinking on the chief–on Disraeli there, and P3s.

Let's put this back on the backburner, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee. Let's ensure there is no duplication. This proposal calls for not just the City Auditor to review every P3 project, but also the provincial auditor. Where is the –there's things out–in there–in this legislation that don't make sense. We are all for openness, transparency and fairness. Let's have a good open discussion about this before we proceed. And I'd like to send this over to my colleague, Councillor Wyatt. Mr. Russ Wyatt (City of Winnipeg): Thank you, Councillor Browaty. Hello Mr.

Chairman, members of the committee, minister, members of the opposition. I'm here, as well, as a member of our city council. I don't believe that P3s are the be all and end all. You're going to hear some presentations from folks saying that it's got to be through the public sector, and the public sector is the way to make it work, and that's the only way to do it. And I don’t believe at the same time– I don’t believe in that argument. I don't believe in the argument as well that P3s are the only solution and this is the solution that makes sense, this is the only way to go.

It's one of the tools that we have, and we don't have many tools, to be blunt. We have set a limit as a council that we would not allow our P3s to exceed –our servicing cost of P3s to exceed 30 per cent of our combined gas tax, funding and cash to capital. That money is worth –that's about, just over $100 million. So that means that at the about

June 11, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 97 $30-million mark, a little bit more, we are –we, as a council, have stopped ourselves in terms of what we are allowing ourselves to do in terms of P3s. Why? Because, in a sense, P3s are borrowing. It's a form of borrowing off the balance sheet. It's borrowing nonetheless. We've done that because we understand that it is not the only solution. But it has been one of the solutions that we've been using, and thank goodness we've had it.

The reality is, we, and not just our municipality, but municipalities across Canada have not had the resources to do the kind of maintenance and the kind of long- term upkeep that we need to do on our infrastructure. The part of the P3 program which is very innovative is the fact that we enter into a long -term agreement with the private sector so that after 25 or 30 years we are receiving an asset. After that period of time, and after using it for that period of time, that is in the same, like –kind of, condition the day it was built. Now that's huge.

It show –it's huge because it ensures that we, as a municipality, are maintaining it, and we're doing it through a third party, through the private sector. It could be argued that we should be doing that, as well, through the public sector. And if we'd had the funds we probably would. But it actually holds us accountable. It also brings innovation into the process. It gets the private sector involved. We have some business folks here today who are li stening, who've been very innovative. Councillor Browaty talked about the Chief Peguis Trail.

The Chief Peguis Trail, believe it or not, if we had built it as a city, we probably would have built a road which, I'm sorry if I'm going to bore you with this, but I'm a municipal official and kind of find it fascinating, we would have built a Portland concrete roadway, four lanes across. And then we have to maintain this Portland concrete roadway. The private sector came to the table, and they did the analysis, and they looked at the Portland concrete, and they looked at asphalt. And they actually elected to build a roadway out of asphalt.

We would've never done that as a City , but they did because they saw the analysis. They saw that it made–it was most cost effective for them to maintain the road as an asphalt roadway and turn it back to us in the same, like -kind of condition that it was built today. I would encourage your government to think twice about the legislation, not because it actually makes a diffe rence, because, at this point, as I mentioned, we're at our max. Not only that, you're reducing the scope down from 50 to 20 million based on what you're saying here.

The reality is that the most successful P3 projects are a hundred million- plus. These a re the ones that actually make a difference. If you look at what's happening in North America, around the world, in Europe, the successful P3 projects are big projects; they're not small projects. I would ask that your government look at a different way of things, and I know I've talked to the minister about this before. In the past we have been kind of pitted against one against another, in terms of the City and the Province, especially when we go to contract in the private sector.

Province issues a tender; we issue a tender. And sometimes money's thrown around like –they say, well, we're not sure we're going to get that project, but we'll throw in a high number and get it. Who–and what –who loses at the end of the day? Biz get closed, we have to pay high prices; the taxpayer –the residents of Manitoba lose at the end of the day, rather than us co-operating together and working together. Wouldn't it be great if we had a province where we say, you know what, there's a way for us to do P3s with the Province and the City co -operating together?

You have room within your highways department to do those sorts of things. And it's not a question of a threat against public - sector employees. It's not a question of a threat against jobs. Let me tell you something: the infrastructure is crumbling so fast, there is more than enough work for all of us to go around in terms of private sector and public sector. The problem is the money. There's not enough money.

And one of the things in terms of the P3 that's fascinating r ight now is that we do have a federal government–whether you agree with them or not ideologically, it doesn't matter –we have a federal government that has a program that's offering 20 cents on the dollar. And we just came back from an FCM conference, and cities across the country are scrambling for that money because there's not much of it left–to grab that money to be able to do infrastructure projects with leveraging federal dollars outside of Building Canada.

The message your legislation is sending–eve n though it's really –it's too late for us, really. If you'd done it maybe six, seven years ago, it might've had an impact on us. But the reality is the legislation you're sending, it's sending the wrong message, and

98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11, 2012 not just here in Manitoba –more importantly, across the country –that Manitoba's not open for business, that we don't want to encourage innovation, we don't want to have competition, we don't want to see that kind of participation in our economy which we desperately need. We need ideas, and we need more tools and I would encourage–respectfully encourage– I have great respect for this body and for all the members on both sides who put work and time and effort here–to reconsider this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you v ery much for your presentation, Councillors Wyatt and Browaty. We'll now move on to questions from the committee. Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Finance): Yes, thank you very much and thanks for coming down, both councillors, to the Legislature to give us some advice on this piece of legislation. I want to make it clear that the message that you claim that we're sending –the message we want to send is one of consultation and accountability.

We want to send a message of transparency and maybe, most importantly, value for money, because we know you're strapped for cash, we're strapped for cash. I hear from colleague Jim Flaherty that he's strapped for cash. We understand that we have to make the dollars go further and further all the time. I do take your points that there are projects out there that haven't been successful. I've seen them in the public sector; I've seen them in the private sector.

I read the other day of a 3P project that was a disaster, so I think that –it was the Halifax water treatment facility, and I think you probably know of that example. I think it's responsible on our part to take a look at not only building on the successes but prote cting our taxpayer against things that could go south. I would be interested if that's your approach as well, if you think that protection needs to be there and what that framework might look like if it's different than what we've put forward here. Mr.

Wyatt: Yes, you know, the key thing is, is you know the old expression, you know, we learned about computers years ago: garbage in, garbage out, right? The more due diligence you do–our staff are terrific. I mean, really, the legislation you have before us is there's really no other municipality, maybe save Brandon in Manitoba, that could really – this legislation applies to. It’s the City. We have done a great amount of due diligence in terms of the P3s. Councillor Browaty refers to a City auditor. Our City audit department–arm's-length–it's accountable to council.

It's actually a model that other cities look at in terms of operating an audit department in terms of the accountability and the due diligence they do. We–and it's we pride ourselves on that, becaus e we have been burnt in terms of the public sector.

Our water treatment plant–you know, over budget–publicly tendered out, and so we were very cognizant of that, and we pushed the public service back really hard in terms of saying, if we're going a P3 route, we want to absolutely ensure value for money is there. * (20:00) You're absolutely correct, Minister Struthers, is that the value for money is crucial, and it's tied in to the ability for us to be able to gain competition, for us to be able to sit down in terms of looking at the qualified proponents for a project and ensure that the work they do meets the specifications that we require, and that's where the design–we –we're–in an attempt to transfer the risk.

And, sometimes, more complicated projects are the better projects in terms of the P3, but you're transferring the risk away from the public sector to the private sector. Now, you could argue that you're also transferring the benefit; that if there's a benefit at the end of the day, it's also being transferred, but that's part of the process. If you have a risk, and they meet, and they're able to overcome that risk, there would be a benefit. There's no doubt in mind that private sector is there for one reason; they want to make a profit, and that's their incentive in this.

And there's–I don't think that's a bad thing because, at the end of the day, we, as a city, can turn around and say, we've delivered it on time, we've delivered on budget and we will have an asset after 30 years, like, kind of, quality that will be maintained–something that we can't say for all of our other assets. I wish we could. I wish we did have the monies and the resources to be able to say, boom, this is how we're doing it, but we can't. And that's why we limit ourselves to 30 per cent of that borrowing capacity, so– Mr. Chairperson: Mrs. St efanson. Oh, sorry, Mr. Browaty.

June 11, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 99 Mr. Browaty: May I just

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	40-1-hr3
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	40th 1st hansardpdf hr3.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3db37c7f58fd0f9575e7ed8c076e6269966fb355

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).