Manitoba Committee Hansard — 24 July 2008 (Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 11, 39th Legislature, 2nd Session)

39-2-sed11

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Ninth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development Chairperson Mr. Rob Altemeyer Constituency of Wolseley Vol. LX No. 11 – 10 a.m., Thursday, July 24, 2008 ISSN 1708-6698

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Ninth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thompson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli N.D.P. BLADY, Sharon Kirkfield Park N.D.P. BOROTSIK, Rick Brandon West P.C. BRAUN, Erna Rossmere N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. BRIESE, Stuart Ste. Rose P.C. CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CULLEN, Cliff Turtle Mountain P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary, Hon. Concordia N.D.P.

DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C. FAURSCHOU, David Portage la Prairie P.C. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach P.C. GRAYDON, Cliff Emerson P.C. HAWRANIK, Gerald Lac du Bonnet P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. HOWARD, Jennifer Fort Rouge N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri, Hon. Fort Garry N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. JHA, Bidhu Radisson N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. The Pas N.D.P. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St.

Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARCELINO, Flor Wellington N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McFADYEN, Hugh Fort Whyte P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River N.D.P. PEDERSEN, Blaine Carman P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SARAN, Mohinder The Maples N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELBY, Erin Southdale N.D.P.

SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St. Boniface N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. SWAN, Andrew, Hon. Minto N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

725 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Thursday, July 24, 2008 TIME – 10 a.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mr. Bjornson, Hon. Ms. Irvin-Ross Mr. Altemeyer, Mses. Blady, Brick, Messrs. Cullen, Dewar, Goertzen, Hawranik, Maloway, Mrs. Mitchelson Substitutions: Mr. Briese for Mrs. Mitchelson at 1135 Ms. Marcelino for Mr. Maloway at 1410 Hon. Ms. Melnick for Hon. Ms. Irvin-Ross at 1410 Mr.

Schuler for Mr. Goertzen at 1411 Hon. Mr. Chomiak for Ms. Blady at 1559 Mr. Saran for Hon. Ms. Melnick at 1754 Mr. Faurschou for Mr. Cullen at 1754 APPEARING: Mr. Ron Schuler, MLA for Springfield Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, MLA for Inkster WITNESSES: Ms. Barbara McDole, Private Citizen Ms. Sharon Fischer, Private Citizen Ms. Deedee Rizzo, Private Citizen Ms. Maggie Keller, Private Citizen Ms. Georgina Jarema, Private Citizen Mr. Norman Grywinski, Private Citizen Ms. Linda Asper, Private Citizen Mr. Aubrey Asper, Private Citizen Ms. Karen Wiebe, Private Citizen Mr. Warren Ogren, Private Citizen Ms.

Patricia Grafenauer, Private Citizen Ms. Jo-Anne Irving, Private Citizen Mr. Ian Mac Intyre, Private Citizen Mr. Gregory Giesbrecht, Private Citizen Ms. Phyllis Hunter, Private Citizen Ms. Edith Doyle, Private Citizen Mr. Philip Zubrycki, Private Citizen Mr. David Bertnick, Private Citizen Ms. Sandra Johnston, Private Citizen Ms. Monique Ting, Private Citizen Mr. Bob Thompson, Private Citizen Mr. Albert Labun, Private Citizen Ms. Valdine Johnson, Private Citizen Mr. Edward Mann, Private Citizen Mr. Lorne Ferley, Private Citizen Ms. Jackie Wardell, Private Citizen Mr. Ivan Pokus, Private Citizen Mr.

John Petrinka, Private Citizen Mr. Bob Preston, Private Citizen Mr. Ken Miller, Private Citizen Ms. Clarice Gilchrist, Private Citizen Mr. Dale Lund, Private Citizen Mr. Dick Marshall, Private Citizen Ms. Ruth Livingston, Private Citizen Ms. Mary Barzey, Private Citizen Ms. Lea Mansell, Private Citizen Ms.

Ursula Schindel-Ditchburn, Private Citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Elizabeth Ilott, Private Citizen Edward Belliveau, Private Citizen Dorothy Troop, Private Citizen Evelyn Tycholiz, Private Citizen Don and Tanis McDonald, Private Citizens Daniel Kiazyk, Private Citizen Margaret Hamilton, Private Citizen Eugene Yarish, Private Citizen Margaret Milton, Private Citizen I. Jean Tully, Private Citizen Kenneth B.

Tully, Private Citizen Judy Olmstead-Coss, Private Citizen Roslyn Roberts, Private Citizen Maria Nickel, Private Citizen Carolyn Lintott, Private Citizen Gerry Sankar, Private Citizen Gordon Henderson, Private Citizen Linda Puttaert, Private Citizen Wayne Watson, Private Citizen Rhea Chudy, Private Citizen Janice Yon, Private Citizen Valdine Johnson, Private Citizen Corrina Kroeker, Private Citizen Orah Moss, Seven Oaks Teachers' Association

726 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2008 Phil MacLellan, Private Citizen Tracy Fyfe, Private Citizen Matt Turner, Private Citizen Kelly Turner, Private Citizen Barbara Cummine, Private Citizen Peter Isaak, Private Citizen Denis Fontaine, Private Citizen Edith Furdievich, Private Citizen Jag Malik, Private Citizen Tom Carlyle, Private Citizen Jamie Krutkewich, Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 45–The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act * * * Mr. Chairperson: Good morning, one and all. Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order.

Your first item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Oh, thank you. It's my pleasure to nominate Ms. Brick. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Brick has been nominated. Any other nominations? Seeing none, Ms. Brick has been elected Vice-Chair of the committee. Now, for the benefit of anyone who may not have been here the previous days that we have been sitting, this meeting has been called to consider Bill 45, The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act. We have a number of presenters registered to speak this morning.

They are all listed on the sheet before you, committee members, and posted on the board at the entrance to the room. There is also the extr a room down the hall, Room 254, as an overflow room, should we need it. Staff are also there to assi st you if you need it. The proceedings from this room are transmitted into Room 254 and broadcast there. The committee completed the first call through the rural presenters on Tuesday, and we are now continuing with our first call of Winnipeg presenters.

We do have a number of other items to get through before we begin with pr esenters, and I thank the members of the public for their patience as we do this. For everyone's information, written versions of presentations are not required. If you are going to provide your presentation in written form, we ask that you provide us with 20 copies. Staff at the back of the room, again, can help you with that.

I'd also like to inform all presenters that, in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for each presentation, with up to a maximum of an additional 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 removed from the presenters' list.

On a brief side note, members are aware that we have had a large volume of presenters registered to speak to this bill. I would like to take a moment to thank the staff of the Clerk's office, in particular Pat Malynyk, Karen Kawaler and Arlene Finkel, for their hard work and dedication in recording and tracking all of the information required to keep us organized here, and Rick Yarish without whom we could not do anything– [interjection] That was a bit of ad lib. This process could not function without them, of course, and we really appreciate all their great help.

Written submissions on Bill 45 have been received from the following persons and distributed to committee members. Their names are Elizabeth Ilott, Edward Belliveau and Dorothy Troop. Ms. Troop is presenter No. 112 on the master list. If committee members wish to make that note on their sheets, they can. We have also received word that presenter listed at No. 33, Alf Brooks, has phoned and asked to be removed from the list and has not provided a presentation–sorry, a written submission.

Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding this process. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA at the table or a presenter from the general public, I first, as Chair, have to say the person's name. This is a signal for the Hansard technician to turn the appropriate microphones on and off.

Thank you for your patience and we will now proceed with public presentations. One very brief note, before doing so, just for the committee's information, last night– [interjection]–

July 24, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 727 just right after this. Last night, the committee agreed to allow presenter listed as No. 161, Mr. Alfred Dubé, to make a presentation in French this morning with the assistance of our translation staff. He has not yet checked in. With the committee's permission, we will ask our translation staff to remain in the room for a little while, on the off-chance that he does appear. When he does, they will let us know and then we can hear that presentati on. That's my proposal as Chair; is that acceptable to the committee? [Agreed] Mr.

Schuler, I believe you had a point to raise. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Presenter Val Monk had run out of time with her presentation. I don't remember if I asked if we could have her entire presentation published in Hansard. If I didn't, could we ask that her presentation be printed in its entirety in Hansard? Mr. Chairperson: Just to clarify, Mr. Schuler, that was from last night's presentation or early this morning's? Mr. Schuler: It was definitely not early this morning. Mr. Chairperson: It was definitely not early this morning? Okay, the Clerk's office will yet again perform their superhuman task.

Could you repeat the name again? Mr. Schuler: The name is Val Monk. We would like her written presentation published in the record. Mr. Chairperson: Is that amenable to the committee? [Agreed] Thank you very much for that. With those matters resolved, we will now begin hearing from our list. * (10:10) Mr. Schuler: I apologize to the committee. It's Anne Monk, and it was Tuesday night. I'm sure this is a clear indication that when we sit 24/7 this is what happens. It is Anne Monk, and I apologize. Mr. Chairperson: Duly noted. Will we let Anne Monk's presentation be recorded in Hansard? [Agreed] Excellent.

Anne and Val, both. Thank you for that, everybody. We will now begin hearing from members of the public. First name on the list is Ruth Hartnell. Is Ruth Hartnell here this morning? Seeing no one, we will drop her name to the bottom of the list. Presenter No. 2, Barbara McDole. Excellent. I see you have written copies. Thank you very much for that. Ms. McDole, you may begin when you're ready. Ms.

Barbara McDole (Private Citizen): I don't know whether this is a good start to the morning or not because I represent the Retired Women Teachers' Association, and you know how cranky women can be at this stage of their lives. So, on that note, we'll begin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Legislative Assembly, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity to express concern about the Sale report. My name is Barbara McDole and I am the president of the Retired Women Teachers' Association, which represents nearly 500 professional teachers. Our organization actually started in 1951.

I am appalled at the treatment being handed down to the retired teachers by the Doer government and the Manitoba Teachers' Society. A moral contract has been broken. I, personally, in good faith, was a member of MTS and conscientiously did what was expected of me for 33 years. In 1977, I bought into the implementation of a COLA program that was to be run honestly and professionally, and paid into it for 22 years to protect myself in later years. Fast forward to 2008, MTS and the Doer government tried to ram through a plebiscite that: (

a) did not include RTAM, (

b) deliberately withheld accurate information from active teachers, pitting them against retired teachers and encouraging them to vote yes, and (

c) disenfranchised many out-of- province retired teachers due to slow mail delivery. I personally heard that plebiscites arrived with no ballots included; interesting approach. Also interesting and noteworthy is that a former NDP minister, Tim Sale, who has no background whatsoever in education, is hired to write a report on COLA funding recommendations. The railroading of the bill without any input whatsoever from RTAM, aided and abetted by a flawed plebiscite process, speaks to the lack of sensitivity of the Doer government.

Members of the committee, let me give you a taste of what some women who have dedicated their professional lives to children think about the Doer plan. 1. This is in reply to Mr. Sale's report to the problem of inflation protection for teachers' pensions. Alternative approaches to financing this problem were not taken. Mr. Sale mainly recommended the government's objectives, being a

728 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2008 member of the government. Submitted by Ms. Dorothy Manson. 2. A COLA was promised by the Manitoba government of time and paid for by the working teachers of the time and now retired. Is it a government policy to break promises? I am disillusioned and upset by the unfair treatment of retired teachers. A fair COLA is our right. Submitted by Connie Fiorentino Scerbo. 3.

I have always considered the NDP to be a party and government that believes in fairness and equity for the working man, retirees and all its citizens, but now I'm deeply disappointed to think that this fiduciary trust is being broken. I am saddened that my children will have to learn a hard lesson, that the NDP government lied to their mother and to all the other retired teachers who worked hard to earn their retirement dues. Submitted by Yvonne Collins. 4. I have taught in good faith for over 40 years in Manitoba. Our government's position on COLA payment is disgraceful.

Retired teachers need the COLA we paid and worked for. The contributions we made to education and making this province a better place is of prime importance. Government, get your priorities straight and pay up. Submitted by Vicki Brunel. These are just four excerpts from many letters that I received from members of RWTA, being their president. I, personally, have given 33 years of my life to encouraging, educating and empowering approximately 1,200 children in this province because I believe they need to have hope in their futures.

When I was asked to support COLA, I was a struggling single mom with two young children and no child support. Just an aside here. In 1984, I got divorced, and that happened at the time frame that the government mandated that you had to split your pension. So I was forced to ante up over $500 a month to my ex-husband. However, he had no pension to split. Fair deal? Not really. I retired in 1999 and, to date, have lost $55,000 of my pension. Neither the government or MTS, which I'd been a member of for 18 years, had any protection plan in place for me or other women who found themselves in similar situations.

I felt, at that time, it was my duty to ensure that those teachers who had retired before me would not be consigned to retirement poverty. Having paid into this at a very difficult period in my life, I now find out the deal has changed. MTS and the government have broken the moral contract. If COLA is not an option, then I want my money back. It's not my fault that the fund was mismanaged. I retired in 1999 and had children ages 18 and 21 at that time. I am remarried; otherwise, university would have been out of the question for them.

At 26, my daughter is in Calgary taking a human resources degree and my son, at 30, is doing a Master's in exercise physiology. I am still helping them both financially. This is a different time era, for many parents my age are still finding it necessary to help and support their children. Since not really retiring, I have done home tutoring and worked for four years as a faculty adviser in educ ation at the University of Manitoba. I took a year-long course with Manitoba Search and Rescue, along with my Pyrenees dog, Bear.

He is now a qualified therapy dog and I have been working the past year in schools with learning- disabled children. Just on an aside and, sort of, a comic relief from this, I have a friend who owns a pizza restaurant. She was having trouble getting drivers and so she said to me: Barbara, would you help me out? I'll pay you. I said, no, no, I don't want you to help me out; I'll just do it for fun. So anyway, I went in and cleaned her kitchen and peeled potatoes, and there came this huge delivery out near a school that I used to teach at. It was a delivery of about 15 pizzas and they were late.

The fellow phoned about four times to say, where are the pizzas? So, Penny, the owner said: I'm glad, Barbara, you're the one delivering these pizzas. So off I went and I rushed to this house and hopped out with my little red bags of pizzas and headed for the door. The fellow opened the door, and said: My God, it's Ms. McDole from Darwin School. I said: Yeah, the pensions aren't great, guys. Anyway, I taught my own children, as well as my students, to be honest and accountable. Obviously, some members of the provincial government and MTS missed those classes.

They should be ashamed of their unconscionable dealings and deceit with RTAM. Fair and equitable solutions are needed now and in the future. We have paid tens of thousands of dollars for inflation protection and been thrown crumbs. This is pretty insulting to educated professionals who have been entrusted with society's most valuable resource, its children. Thank you.

July 24, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 729 Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Questions? Mr. Schuler: Well, Ms. McDole, that is an interesting story that you gave us about having to work for a pizza place to supplement your income. Ms. McDole: I didn't work, I volunteered. Mr. Schuler: You volunteered. The five bucks, five bucks, five bucks seems to come to mind. Anyway, I appreciate your presentation and the passion which you give it. You've been around to see, sort of, the developments in it, and I'll ask you the question we've asked of others.

You've, then, always been under the impression that a COLA, that that was a given, that that's what you had signed off on and that's what you were paying for. Is that correct? * (10:20) Ms. McDole: I would like to address that because it was interesting, with Pat Isaak's presentation the night before last, in the fact she had stated that, in 1977, when this came in, it really wasn't a go, at least that's how I sort of read what she was saying. In other words, it really wasn't a done deal. What would have happened at that particular time? Teachers really have a problem of rolling over.

I think the problem now is that many in the RWTA– a number of women are in their late '80s and early '90s. I want to tell you in all honesty–and this is the truth–out of the four luncheons which we have a year and it's $15 a ticket–there are many members who only can afford to come to one of those lunches of the four because of their salaries. In many cases, the newly retired people who are 55 and over are loaded for bear. This is the Woodsto ck era; they grew up in the '50s and '60s and they're not willing to sit back and be bamboozled by what happened.

In '77, when I was told I had to put money into a pension plan–and I was a single mom with two kids– I did it because I felt that it was my moral obligation to help those people who came before me. So I did it. My point is, if this was not a solid deal, as Pat Isaak referred to–unless I misunderstood her–what would have happened if I would have said, I don't think this is okay; I'm going to put all my money in RRSPs. What would have happened if I had done that? So yes, I did, in answer to your question. That was the long way around it, but yes, I honestly did.

I didn't just give the government, in my financial straits, extra money because I thought I was never going to have anything back for it. I was trying to plan ahead. Mr. Schuler: Yes, and thank you for waiting so long. I've seen you here over the last few days and appreciate you waiting so patiently for the fourth day to finally make a presentation. Thank you, again. Ms. McDole: Thanks so much for all your time. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. McDole, thank you. The next presenter, No. 3, Monique Hebert. Monique Hebert? Seeing no one, drop the name to the bottom of the list. Number 4, Sharon Fischer. Sharon Fischer?

Yes, of course. Good morning. Ms. Sharon Fischer (Private Citizen): Good morning. Mr. Chairperson: Do you have written copies or just an oral presentation? Ms. Fischer: No, this is just oral. Most of what I've got to say has been said, but I need to stand up and be counted. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Fischer, you may begin when you're ready. Ms. Fischer: I hope. I've got nine minutes and 45 seconds here, so I'll dispense with the pleasantries and start.

I found it more difficult than I expected when I sat down to compose my thoughts for this presentation, not because I didn't know what I wanted to say, but because I found my emotional temperature rising each time I started to consider the issues. I was forced to ask myself why. I finally determined that I was upset because I felt like I'd been had–conned, duped. It was a sense of betrayal. I was reluctant to use that word, even to myself, because it felt like overstatement. So I was glad when previous speakers here identified the same feeling.

The scenario I saw in my head was a couple of government negotiators, back in the '70s, having a little confab: Okay, these teachers want a full cost- of-living allowance, but they'll pay more for it–16 percent–and they'll pay for their own disability insurance. Sounds like a good deal. Don't worry, if things don't work out, we're the government; we can always change the rules.

730 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2008 Did this really happen? Not likely, but the end result is the same. The Sale proposal changes the rules. My dad was a union man; you can guess his politics. His advice to those deciding on a career was: Never mind the wages; what's the pension plan like? As a working teacher, I was always aware that our pension agreement included a full COLA; that was public knowledge. It wasn't just me; it was kind of understood. Everybody knew that. This meant, if I could afford to retire, I could afford to stay retired. The COLA would help me keep pace with rising expenses.

That knowledge was important in my financial planning. Now, after the fact, you want to reduce it to a maximum of two-thirds; zero to two-thirds is more likely–now, when it's too late for me to alter my retirement date or put more money into an RRSP. I could've put a few more dollars into my Crocus account. This type of change should be made with lead time, so that people can adequately prepare for it. Cost-of-living increases are just as important to pensioners as salary increases are to the working. Who'd continue to work without them? The cost-of-living rates are an average of all things bought and sold.

Some prices go up; some go down. We've all seen the price of electronics, furniture, even cars, go down or plateau in the last few years. As a senior, I can forego a new couch. I'm not interested in a new iPod. The bulk of our money is used for essentials: food, home repairs, taxes, medical expenses, utilities, fuel for our cars. Though equal-minded, oldsters just can't hop on a bike and hoof it down to the mall as easily. All of these above expenses have soared recently and, on a regular basis, they outstrip the average CPI. There's an

article in the Free Press this morning about rising food prices, up to 44 percent, an average of 12 percent for the foods they listed, basic staples. After my first year of retirement, I was notified I'd be receiving a COLA increase. Wow, it came to about $4 a month. Ironically, in the very same day's mail, I got a letter stating that my utility bill would also be increasing, about $5 a month. We can't listen to the news these days without hearing about Manitoba's improved prosperity, but prosperity often leads to increased prices–look at houses–consequently, after some time, increased wages.

So it all balances out, unless you're retired. The most immediate way to share this prosperity with retirees is to do an adequate cost-of-living allowance. Retired teachers are not the only ones who believe that adequate COLAs are necessary. In Bill 37, allowing for political parties to receive $1.25 per vote for election expenses, these monies are to be 100 percent indexed. Certainly, what a political party chooses to spend on a campaign is completely discretionary. We're all aware of parties with relatively small budgets that manage to attract considerable support, like the Green Party.

I have a hard time equating the value of a political poster with my hydro costs. Why do campaign monies need to be fully indexed, but not pensions? Bill 45 is proposing a two-thirds cap on our COLA, in fact, a rollback. Unfortunately, this is often confused with a tw o-thirds guarantee. I'm going to quote from the Free Press, July 17 of this year, barely a week ago: At issue is a bill that offers retired teachers a cost-o f-living increase worth two- thirds of inflation. But this is not true, is it? All that I am guaranteed is I'll become at least one-third, or more, poorer every year.

This is frightening, and a little voice in my head says it's not fair. The fact that this was spearheaded by the NDP just heightens my sense of betrayal. They've been the party of choice for many te achers. In fact, I seem to remember the Manitoba Teachers' Society publicly endorsing them a few elections ago. They certainly had my support. I have to admit I always felt somewhat righteous about this. We've all heard those cynical stories about politics and politicians, patronage and chicanery, double dealing, et cetera. Well, my party was above all that.

They were the good guys, the straight shooters–ethical, inclusive, and on the lookout for the little guy. However, the divide-and-conquer tactics used to promote this deal were an eye-opener. Active teachers are pitted against the retired, and retirees against retirees. Sadly, you can feel it in this room. I actually got a letter from the Teachers' Society president, stating that the Retired Teachers' Association was not looking after my interests. Classroom teachers were kept in the dark until just before the plebiscite. I haven't been retired that

July 24, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 731 long, only a few years; so I have a lot of friends still working in the classroom. Luckily, they're still talking to me. I found out that they knew precious little about COLA issues. * (10:30) The spin put on the

interpretation of the Sale report could make you dizzy. It's the process as much as the legislation that stings. I don't believe that government will look back on this as one of its finer moments, but the expression, you don't always get what you want, is nowhere truer than in the classroom. Teachers know how to compromise. If we did accept this two-thirds proposal, are we really going to get it? There certainly are implications but no promises, and if we did get it next year, for how long afterwards? Don't forget, retirees in the '80s got full COLAs for the first few years too.

How long before they begin to cry poor again? That little voice in my head is asking, am I being conned again? The reason we can't receive fair COLAs now, we are told, is because we didn't pay enough into our PAA account. I'm made to feel guilty for this, but government and the Teachers' Society–and I believe government has the last word, they are the ones who determined–no, they dictated–what I could pay into this pot. Where was MTS when the alarm bells first went off? That's when a plebiscite about increasing contributions would have been appropriate.

I'm hearing young teachers say that they don't want to have to pay $300 a month to ensure our COLA. I don't blame them. It's a lot of money. I wouldn't want to pay that either. I'm not sure where this figure comes from, but let's suspend judgment for a moment and accept it as fact. Well, then, here's my suggestion. Let's begin by cutting out the middleman. That's you guys. That's government. Okay, out you go. We can probably exclude first- year teachers. They're kind of down on the bottom rung.

Then we could let each active teacher simply adopt a retiree and pay each of us directly, something like $50 to $100 a month. I'd be thrilled with this amount of money, and, according to their figures, they'd be saving a couple of hundred dollars a month. Win-win. Mr. Chairperson: One minute remaining. Ms. Fischer: Instead, we got the Sale report, and here we are on the brink of repeating our underfunding history. The funding procedures proposed are the crux of the issue. They're not yet proved, so, of course, we should try them out for, say, 10 years. Well, 10 years is a long time when I was 20.

Right now, it could be eternity. In 10 years, many of us won't be in a position to care, and on my darkest days I sometimes think that is the whole point. However, we also know there are a large number of active teachers poised to retire in the next five years and more in the five years after that. For their sake, as well as ours, we have to have a solid funding plan. Now that we have open employment between the borders, it would be a shame to see younger teachers going to other provinces because they have better pension plans.

This proposal is an all-eggs-in- one-basket deal and depends heavily on investment returns to succeed. Well, my investments are not paying off big dollars these days–I don't know about yours–and this is the plan we should all buy into as we sit on the edge of our chairs and watch our southern neighbours sink into recession. I've got 35 seconds. Mr. Chairperson: Leave? [Agreed] You have leave, out of question time. Same as usual. Thank you. Ms. Fischer: Should these investments not materialize, is there a plan B?

We've heard that the government has recently put money into teachers' pensions, but this is the third kick at the cat we've given this government. Doing that now smacks of too little too late. The danger of accepting this proposal is that it will forestall searching for a better, more workable solution. Like others here, I have a hard time believing that a group of people seriously tried to find a way to fund a full COLA. I feel that the two-thirds rollback was the objective and any problem solving was geared to that goal. My c oncern now is that the final solution will not even support that.

I will end with a currently popular expression: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I can't support Bill 45. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Questions. Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much, Ms. Fischer. You've sat here incredibly patiently over my right shoulder, and I know you've been watching and listening. We certainly appreciate your presentation, and it's very heartfelt. Basically, what you're saying is that you thought you were going to get a full COLA. What you would

732 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2008 be interested in is a better-than-two-thirds COLA, and what you're being offered is less than two-thirds, a guaranteed less-than-two-thirds COLA. Where do you think we should be going from here? What would you like to see your government, which is a massive majority in Manitoba proportions, where would you like to see this majority government going on this issue? Ms. Fischer: Basically, back to the drawing board. It has been said here, and I don't think it's questioned, why the shortfall is there. I agree with people who have said it before me.

I think government has to step up to the plate and put in adequate funds. Retired teachers are not insisting on 100 percent COLA, but $4 a month is almost a slap in the face when you get a bill on the same day for a $5 utility bill increase. If I'd known back then, I literally would have invested more money, but everybody knew that teachers' pensions were cost-indexed.

There was some rumour going out that government wasn't putting their share into the pot, but with each new government that carrot was kind of dangled, you know, oh, this government will top it up, this government will, this government will, and it hasn't happened; it hasn't happened, and it has to happen; it has to happen. How many people does Manitoba want living below the poverty line? How many senior citizens do they want using the food banks? Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your time with us.

One quick item for th e committee's reference, we have received word that speaker No. 57, Monica Harder, has asked to be removed from the list without a written submission, if you'd care to make that note. Also, for members of the public, as you just saw there, when a presenter reaches the nine-minute mark of their 10-minute allocation, I will give a notice of one minute remaining. As you can see, the committee does have the latitude to grant leave, though that does come out of the maximum five minutes left for questions afterward. That said, the next name we will call is No. 5, Deedee Rizzo. Ms.

Deedee Rizzo (Private Citizen): The name is Rizzo. Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, Rizzo? Ms. Rizzo: Rizzo, as in pizza. Mr. Chairperson: Rizzo, thank you. Much appreciated. Ms. Rizzo: You're welcome. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Rizzo, oral presentation? Ms. Rizzo: Yes, thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Very good, you may begin when you're ready. Ms. Rizzo: My name is Deedee Rizzo. I'm a retired teacher and former president of RTAM from 2003 to 2005. I'm no longer currently on the board of RTAM and I'm here as a private citizen. I spent 31 years as a teacher in the province of Manitoba.

During the time, I came to realize that the two things that were essential in dealing with students and adults were both patience and fairness. I stand before you today completely out of the former because I see a total lack of the latter. I am tired of being treated like a second class citizen with no rights regarding something that is critical to my future, and that is my pension. I am tired of the pretence of th e inclusion of RTAM in any decision-making process when the legislation continues to refer only to the Manitoba Teachers' Society and the government.

I am tired of the piecemeal approach to resolving a critical problem. I am tired of other people having the right to make decisions to our detriment about monies that have been generated from retirees' pension contributions. I am tired of the lack of political will in trying to solve a problem that should have been addressed years ago. And I am tired of the references that I, as a retired teacher, am being difficult, emotional and unreasonable, simply because I want to be treated fairly.

Lest anyone think that my being tired of these things suggests that I plan to give up and go away quietly, let me disabuse you of that thought. I do not plan to give up or go away, and I certainly don't plan to be quiet. I've been retired for nine years during which time the buying power of my pension has been reduced by 10.8 percent, 10.78, if we're going to be very precise. This is the difference between what I would have received had the COLA paid been equivalent to CPI and what I actually received.

July 24, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 733 * (10:40) The minor tinkering that's been done and is being recommended will do little to slow the downward slide of the buying power of my pension. Even if the plan today was able to pay out a full COLA equivalent to CPI, the 10.8 percent loss in buying power can never be regained. In these nine years, I've seen two very small steps forward. One was an increase in teacher contributions which, I might point out, was just over half of the amount MTS had requested to deal with the under-contributions of active teachers, specifically new entrants to the profession.

The second is in the proposed legislation before us today, which changes the interest crediting method for the Pension Adjustment Account. The latter will bring us up to barely 15 percent of CPI this year, but given the fact that the investment results of the pension plan last year were not great, and probably will not be for the next few years, next year's COLA will probably be considerably lower. At this rate I will continue to get further and further behind and will probably die before the problems are even close to being resolved. I sincerely hope that's not the strategy in play.

It has been noted that pensions are about money in, money out. While that is true, pensions are about much more than that. They are also about promises and commitments. We also have to keep in mind that, when they are legislated pensions, they are about politics and that many decisions made are made for political reasons, which don't, unfortunately, always coincide with the best interests of the plan. It has been repeatedly said over the years that teachers made a different deal than the provincial government employees when an agreement was signed in 1977 to deal with the issue of COLA.

Teachers rejected a two-third cap on COLA in exchange for a higher contribution rate, which we gladly paid, and a elimination of several benefits including the disability pensions. Not only do Bill 45 and the Sale report ignore the historical facts and resurrect the government agenda, the two-thirds cap, but also to add insult to injury, makes no provision for the funding of a PAA to even come close to achieving that amount.

While Bill 45 gives a figure for a maximum COLA, what is missing is the commitment and political will to establish a plan for the funding of the PAA that can pay out an adequate COLA and the legislation that will enable the pension plan to achieve it. For MTS to consider Bill 45 a win-win proposition completely baffles and saddens me. Not only does Bill 45 expect retired teachers to wait 10 years for any hope of meaningful improvements in their COLA, but it also provides little funding by which it can be achieved.

This bill suggests not only a disregard for a well- being of retired teachers but also a disregard for the future well-being of all teachers. The COLA issue is not, as some would like to portray it, an inter- generational conflict, but rather a problem facing all of us that needs to be solved. The improvement and health of the PAA benefit everyone. For active teachers to think that things will miraculously improve by the time they retire is misguided, to say the least. Failure to act over the years, as we have seen, only exacerbates the problems.

There's been an inference in some of the presentations that we've gotten something for nothing. We've been able to retire earlier and live longer without paying for these benefits, so we have to suffer the consequences of our actions. I certainly take the responsibility for my decision to retire earlier with a corresponding lower pension, but I'm afraid the living longer

part is a matter of luck, and, despite my commitment to the plan, I certainly plan to take advantage of any possibility of living longer, if I can at all do so. Should we have paid more for our pension? Probably. But hindsight is always 20-20. The economic environment in the mid-'80s was very different from today. There was high inflation and economic restraint on the part of governments. With the government encourag ing salary settlements below the rate of inflation, it did not wish to be in the political position of raising pension contributions at the time.

An example of a political decision versus what is best for the plan. The result was our pension plan, benefiting from inflation, was showing a healthy surplus, but teachers' salary increases were suffering from economic restraints which extended into the '90s. I used to joke in the years leading up to my retirement that I'd be getting a better cost-of-living increase if I were retired. Then, of course, I retired in '99 and the pendulum swung the other way. As they say, timing is everything.

734 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2008 It is probably understandable that political decisions were made to delay any pension contribution increases until the economic climate improved. Did I, as an individual teacher, know about this at the time? No. Were these political decisions part of a public debate? No. Did I, as an individual teacher, make the decision not to increase my contributions? No. I raise this not to assign blame for past decisions. Those were different times and different experiences. Mr. Chairperson: One minute remaining. Ms.

Rizzo: Obviously, political decisions were made that, in retrospect, were not well thought out. Let us not make the same mistake today. I come from a perspective of social responsibility. Our governments and our professional organizations are the political mechanisms by which changes take place. They cannot divorce themselves from past actions. We have to ensure that they are held accountable. We need to all move forward in a constructive manner and ensure that mistakes are rectified in the best way possible. What we have in Bill 45 is legislation that provides little of what is promised.

Retired teachers rejected the Sale report recommendations, and the result was a plebiscite undertaken by the government in consultation with MTS. Mr. Chairperson: Order. We've reached the 10- minute mark. Is there leave of the committee? [Agreed] Leave is granted, in lieu of question time. Please continue. Ms. Rizzo: Thank you. The process, first of all, did not include the approximately 6,000 members of the plan who have deferred status, including all teachers on leave, such as maternity leave.

Second ly, the turnaround time of two to three weeks was to o short for anyone away for a few weeks or living out of province to have an opportunity to vote. Thirdly, the process also favoured MTS, since they have the resources to get their position out to its members. This was hardly a balanced and fair approach and has only served to create a lot of distrust. When I read Bill 45, I couldn't understand how anyone would expect that retired teachers would accept a bill that shows such a blatant disregard for their present and future well-being.

When I look at the negative effect that the lack of COLA has had on many of the older retired teachers, especially women, who had small pensions to begin with, the concern about dying with dignity takes on a whole new meaning. As one of the many thousands of retired teachers in the province, I will continue, along with my colleagues, to speak out in favour of a fair and equitable solution. The government, however, has an opportunity to do what is fair.

It can withdraw Bill 45 and show some political will and commit to working with MTS and RTAM to find ways of adequately funding the PAA for the benefit of both current and future retirees. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Rizzo. Questions? Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much, Ms. Rizzo. You've also been one of those individuals who sat here basically for the entire time and listened to presentations. It's appreci ated that you waited until the fourth day to make your presentation and also for the work that you've put into this. I will ask you the question I've asked many others: Where do we go from here?

What would you like to see? We've talked about putting a hoist on Bill 45 to allow more discussions. You were part of a lot of the discussions. Give us some advice as a committee where you would like to see us continue going. * (10:50) Ms. Rizzo: I think there has to be political will to solve the problem and not come into discussions with a preconceived idea of what they want to get out of it in terms of minimizing costs. There has to be a full exploration of all the possibilities. It doesn't just come down to what the active teachers can pay and what the government doesn't want to pay.

It has to be an exploration of the surplus investment returns which I know that MTS is adamant about not sharing with retired teachers despite the fact a good portion of the monies in that account belongs to us. Possibly the reason for that reluctance is any surplus is being used to offset the under-contributions of the new entry teachers, which needs to be addressed with increased payments to the account. The implication that the shortfall in account A is the result of the underfunding by retired teachers is totally misleading and erroneous. The majority of the

July 24, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 735 problem is a result of under-contributions of new entrants. Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, the committee thanks you for your time. Ms. Rizzo: Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: The next name we call is No. 6, Ruby Hanna. Is Ruby Hanna with us this morning? Seeing no one, her name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Number 7, Maggie Keller. Is Maggie Keller here? Good morning, do you have written copies? Ms. Maggie Keller (Private Citizen): I do. Mr. Chairperson: Excellent. Thank you for that. Ms. Keller, you may begin when you're ready. Ms.

Keller: Good morning. My name is Maggie Keller, and I come before you as a private citizen and retired teacher. I have no affiliation with any teacher association, either active or retired. Before I begin, let me take this opportunity to thank the committee for hearing my presentation regarding Bill 45, The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act. First, I wish to state th at, as a retired Manitoba teacher, I support Bill 45, The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act. I retired on January 31, 2008.

In February I became aware of the Sale report and its recommendations to correct the inadequate capacity of the Pension Adjustment Account. I read it and therein I began a quest to make myself as knowledgeable as possible about this very complex issue which would directly affect my pension now and for years to come. Along with many teachers, I was already aware of the mismanagement of our pension fund, specifically the COLA, since the issue began being talked about in the late 1990s.

I also knew that in order to fully understand this issue I needed to frame it within the context of the last 25 years of the Manitoba teaching profession. The myriad of past events was bound to have had a direct impact on the present dilemma of the teachers' COLA. I learned that Manitoba teachers made among the lowest contributions in Canada regarding their pension benefits. As well, due to legislative changes, teachers had begun retiring at age 55 as opposed to 65, and for the most part, the average life span of retired teachers increased, as was the Canadian norm.

Notably, one outcome of these changes was that the ratio of active to retired teachers decreased. A direct result was that less mone y was going into the teachers' pension fund, while the time span that teachers continued drawing pensions was increasing. Then, in the late 1980s, Manitoba elected a Conservative government. During the early 1990s, the Conservatives put a freeze on public-sector salary increases. I remember during that time period not receiving a wage increase for several years. As well, teachers endured the infamous Filmon Fridays.

If personal memory serves correctly, schools in my division were locked for four days at least one of those years, and all of us active teachers lost pay and did not make benefits contributions for the lost time. Yet, during those rather dark days for the Manitoba teaching profession, Manitoba retired teachers continued to receive their pensions as well as 100 percent cost-of-living allowance, despite actuarial warnings to the contrary. By 1998, the COLA fund was broken. How did this mismanagement occur?

Who were the players that blatantly chose to ignore the facts surrounding the beleaguered Pension Adjustment Account? It's reasonable to state that these individuals were guilty of neglecting their fiduciary duty toward the retirees, as well as those of us who were in the trenches, working as active teachers and falling further and further behind due to the rising cost of inflation. But that was then and this is now. The past cannot be changed. It can only serve as a guide and a warning to solve problems so that the same mistakes do not occur again.

The present NDP government has introduced Bill 45 based on the recommendations of the Sale report. Although it does not incorporate all the recommendations from said report, it addresses the core issue, that is, the problem of the funding formula for the PAA. For the first 10 years, the rate of return becomes a three-y ear average of the better of two annual rates of return, the fund's rate, based on fixed income investments, and the rate of return for the fund on all of its investments. The 10 years in which the best-of funding formula will be applied to the Pension Adjustment Account is a contentious issue.

Many have stated that the time period is simply too long. In the Sale report, the fund was to be evaluated in 2013, precisely because of the length of time over which the new funding formula was to be

736 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2008 implemented. Unfortunately, this date is missing from Bill 45. As well, the Sale report made reference, in not one but two places, that, while the base pension fund, account A, is healthy, by 2017 it may not be as substantial in optimum returns. The reason is that the current rate of teacher contributions cannot sustain a strong base fund, as more and more teachers retire and fewer are left to make pension contributions. For this very reason, in 2005, Manitoba teachers gave the current government the go-ahead to increase benefit contributions by 2 percent.

However, contributions were only increased by 1.1 percent. I believe that the ques tion of an underfunded pension plan is as important as the COLA issue. Teachers need to know that their monthly pensions are safe for the future. Iro nically, without a strong, secure base fund, the COLA issue becomes moot. Again, the Sale report makes mention that the task force is to meet in early 2009. Yet this fact is absent from Bill 45. Nonetheless, it would seem that this matter is of some urgency. Hopefully, the pension task force will meet and all parties agree to increase benefit contributions another 1 percent.

In closing, I wish to state that, since February of 2008, I have made every effort to listen to both sides of the argument surrounding Bill 45 and its precursor, the Sale report. I can only state that, as a retired Manitoba teacher, I'd like to see years of fiscal mismanagement regarding our pension put behind us. * (11:00) In my life, I learned very early that there are no free lunches and no guarantees but, more importantly, I learned about the power of knowledge in making informed reasonable decisions that will aid in finding solutions to difficult problems.

There has been much vitriolic language hurled about by those who do not agree with either the Sale report or Bill 45. As well, instead of rational debate, I've read reams of letters that have resorted to personal attacks against those who support Bill 45. I cannot believe that these are individuals who would use fear tactics and mudslinging rather than legitimate means to an end. Ultimately, a plebiscite was held and a majority of Manitoba teachers voted yes for Bill 45. In the cold light of reason, teachers decided it is time to begin to solve a long-term complex problem.

Collectively, active and retired teachers have given Mr. Doer's NDP government the green light that will initiate the process to begin putting our fiscal house in order. Let democracy proceed. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Keller. Questions? Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much, Ms. Keller, for waiting so patiently for your opportunity to step forward and make your presentation. We appreciate very much your thoughts which you have put on the record. Two points.

You say that things which were mentioned in the Sale report–one, the fund was to be evaluated in 2013 and, the other one, that the task force is to meet in early 2009. Would you recommend that those would be two very good amendments to make to Bill 45? Ms. Keller: I do. I don't think they should have been left out. I think they're important. I agree; 10 years is a long time. We are in a mess here, starting back with this gentleman who built his ditch. It saved Winnipeg but he took money from the Manitoba teachers' fund.

Yes, it saved Winnipeg but there has been underfunding ever since and that's contributed to it. Now we are in these crisis periods because of a lot of things that have happened over the last 30, 40 years; they've all contributed. Ten years is a long time. There should definitely be monitoring and definitely it should be checked in 2013. I feel very strongly that our base fund definitely needs another 1 percent. We teachers in 2005 asked the NDP to do this; yet, they only put in 1.1 percent. We don't make large contributions; we never have historically. It's time to do that.

So I would like to see a meeting in 2009. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I appreciate the presentation, especially the fact that you had highlighted you were a retired teacher. I think that you're the first retired teacher that's actually come onside and publicly supported at the committee. Last night, in fact, one of the presentations that was made, not verbally but submitted to the committee, was from Mr. Doug Adams. He indicates that he is a current teacher in Brandon and opposes Bill 45. The reason why I bring it up is that the two of you have one thing in common in your presentations.

July 24, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 737 Both of you address the issue of the past and I quote right from his presentation: The inadequate funding of teacher pensions has been a problem for years. There appears to be no significant long-term funding or plan for long-term funding. If I look at what it is that you are saying and what it is that this presenter is saying, it seems to me that there is some sort of responsibility for government to recognize its mistakes.

Would you not agree then that it shouldn't be the sole responsibility of the current retired teachers to resolve this problem, that there is an obligation on the government also to resolve this problem, and how does passing this bill resolve the problem for those retired teachers? Ms. Keller: I see it as–and I've talked to many, many people about this. I mean, it's a start. I guess what I've looked at, I've seen this as a problem. I mean, I'm very analytical. I've listened to a lot of emotional stories and I understand that. I mean, I could start about my life story, but I wanted to kind of focus on the analysis.

It took me months to read. I mean, I went back and I read the pension act with this notion of 100 percent guarantee. If teachers, and I believe them, were told that they were having 100 percent guarantee, that's not written in the pension act, and I think there have been a lot of people that have believed honestly and have been bamboozled. I've been asking questions for 20 years about contributions. Twenty years ago, I said, with my colleagues, why do we make such small contributions? Why isn't the government putting in their share?

I know that, legally, governments don't have to do that because people know that governments have money and they'll put it in at the end, but it would have helped. Now, we're in a situation that has been building, and I see this as the tip of the iceberg. I'm going to tell you something. These people aren't going away and I'm not going away. You know, I may say I want to see a start. I see MTS as actually, and Ms.

Isaak as actually being the first person that has kind of spoken out very, very clearly and analytically, and she has said things that have, I think, frightened a lot of people and terrified people who'd never thought about it before. But I think that in the end it's a good thing because the more that people understand about this, and it's a very complex issue, I believe that's the way it'll be solved. Mr. Chairperson: We have reached the maximum time for questions. The committee thanks you for your presentation. Ms. Keller: Thank you. Mr.

Chairperson: For the committee's consideration, we have received two additional written submissions: one from Evelyn Tycholiz from Kenora, Ontario, and one from, I'm going to guess that is Don MacDonald and Tanis MacDonald from Whitemouth, Manitoba. Is it the will of the committee to accept these written submissions as part of the official record? [Agreed] Thank you very much for that. The next name on the list that we call is No. 8, Nancy Kostiuk. Is Nancy Kostiuk here this morning? Seeing no one, the name is dropped to the bottom of the list. Number 9, David Quinton. Is David Quinton here this morning?

Seeing no one, his name is dropped to the bottom of the list. Number 10, Georgina Jarema, or Jarema. Apologies if I got that wrong. I said it twice, so one of the times I said it was wrong. Thank you for coming here this morning. Do you have an oral presentation for us or written copies? Ms. Georgina Jarema (Private Citizen): Yes, oral Mr. Chairperson: Oral? That's fine. You may begin when you're ready. Ms. Jarema: All right. Mr. Chairperson, members of the Legislature, my name is Georgina Jarema. I come here to speak in opposition to Bill 45.

While I was teaching, I did not have time to read the newspaper often, but now that I am retired, I actually can sit down to have breakfast and also to read the newspaper. A recent

article by a Winnipeg lawyer, Robert Kravetsky in his article, "This time, full disclosure," Winnipeg Free Press , July 13, really got my attention. The government has been spinning big myths about private funding, it said. He writes: "As recently as June 26, Premier Gary Doer went on the radio and declared that the True No rth arena was two-thirds funded by the private sector. In the past, the proportion has been said to be as high as 75 per cent." * (11:10)

738 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2008 Mr. Kravetsky has managed to obtain the master funding agreement and did not want taxpayers to have a big chunk of their money given away to private owners of a public-use facility, a football stadium, without ever having their political leaders give them the straight goods about how much they were giving away. According to the master funding agreement, 69.2 percent came from taxpayers and 30.8 percent came from private owners.

He went on to say, so, really, the people who get all of the profit and have all of the control of the arena put up less than a third of the capital and, as already noted, only 15 percent of the total cost. The owners got a minimum of $3.7 million in income every year for 25 years from the Province and the City. The sweetheart part of the deal for the private owners is they are guaranteed these subsidies for 25 years, whether they need them or not.

Also, he said, an ingenious provision of the master funding agreement required the province to create a special property tax assessment class for the arena site, one that makes the owners liable for property taxes based on 10 percent of the assessed value of the property. By contrast, farmers pay on 26 percent of the value of their property, homeowners pay on 45 percent of the assessed value, and most businesses on 65 percent. So why am I telling you this? It shows that creative ways can be found to accomplish things that the government wants to accomplish. The government is willing to offer sweetheart deals.

The government has money for sweetheart deals. The government may not be telling you the truth. So now the question is, does the government want to find a long-term solution to the COLA funding shortage? So far, I think not. If they were, they would have asked for advice from someone with pension expertise, like someone who had solved the problem in other provinces. They would have made sure that active and retired teachers had copies of the Sale report and RTAM's response to the report. They would have provided an analysis of the impact of the report to active and retired teachers.

They would have allowed time for active and retired teachers to ask questions and get answers from the government, MTS and RTAM. They did not. Without doing these things, it appears that there must be something to hide. The government can and should implement the amendment to the Sale report that all parties agree to. I would like to respond to the MTS executive member who said that he was being responsible by making other investments for his retirement and not only relying on his teachers' pension. I put money into a registered savings plan until I retired.

I would put in the maximum amount I was allowed, which was about $130 in the mid-'80s when the plan became available to people who had a registered pension plan. I would bet most teachers did as well because of the tax savings you get. Some of these investments are doing well, and some, like Crocus, did not. Most of my early investments were in mutual funds. The first time I ventured into the stock market was when the Filmon government sold the Manitoba Telephone System. Other teachers did as well. It was a good investment because it paid dividends. Buying Nortel stock turned into a disaster.

The stock market is not doing well lately. Yes, Gary Doer, you are a bully. As you said on the radio, RTAM told you that it would not support the Sale report because its members were telling them the same thing. So what do you do? Get the MTS president to say that she represents active and retired teachers, but does she get time to meet with them to give an explanation and answer their questions? No. The second reading of Bill 45 is the first time retired teachers have the opportunity to say to the government, stop, we have questions that need answers. Thank you. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. Questions? Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much for waiting so patiently and taking the opportunity to have your presentation put on the public record. You know what? Others have brought up this issue and we haven't really picked up on it, and it really does have to do with the Sale report, and then came the results of the plebiscite, and then the introduction of Bill 45. You're absolutely right. I, as the Education advocate for the PC caucus, didn't know about the bill until right before it was introduced. I was surprised at how quickly it came.

I suspect the minister spent 24 hours a day after the results to make sure that legislation was written in time because we can't suspect that he had it written ahead of time, so he must have–we wouldn't want to charge him. That's obviously, they had to work 24/7 to sort of get it done.

July 24, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 739 I was surprised at how quickly it came forward. That's the problem we have as the opposition is not just do you have not much time to go through, you know, what it all involves and what it entails, but we as the opposition also. In fact, the government had been pushing for us pushing this through yet in the last sitting. That's actually what they had indicated to us they wanted done. The hurry-up is a big concern because if I don't have access to all the information, then how would you?

We appreciate your comments very much and appreciate the fact that you waited this long to put those on the record. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your time with us. The next name on our list, No. 11, Alvin Wieler. Alvin Wieler. Seeing no one, their name is dropped to the bottom of the list. June Wieler. June Wieler is dropped to the bottom of the list. Number 13, Paulette Hughes. Paulette Hughes is dropped to the bottom of the list. Number 14, Debbie Siegel. Debbie Siegel is dropped to the bottom of the list. Number 15, Charlie Siegel. Charlie Siegel also dropped to the bottom of the list.

Number 16, Jan MacPhail. Is Jan MacPhail here with us this morning? No? Her name is dropped to the bottom of the list. Number 17, Norman Grywinski. Mr. Norman Grywinski (Private Citizen): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask if I have the option to keep my presentation, and I'll hand it out to the committee after my presentation. Mr. Chairperson: Yes, sure. Mr. Grywinski: I could give you an explanation. Mr. Chairperson: Just a brief moment while we get the clock started. Your 10 minutes has begun. Mr.

Grywinski: Okay, the reason for that is some members of the committee and myself have noticed that members are multitasking, whether it's on a BlackBerry, whether it's reading a magazine. I didn't want my presentation in written form to distract them from what I have to hear. So, just like my students, I say, put your hands on your desks and pay attention. My head is spinning right now because of probably three nights of probably getting maybe two hours of sleep every night. I would leave after hearing wonderful presentations by the people that are opposed to Bill 45 and also the people that are in favour.

So much information that you go back, you lay down at 1o'clock and you check your watch and it's nearly 4 o'clock. Today it was 5 o'clock before I fell asleep. I have many words in my head right now. Some of them aren't very nice, so I won't say them.

Some of them are words that I heard and some of them, I feel, are words like bully, abuse, sham, kangaroo court, feelings of sadness and sympathy for some people that came here and actually broke down, anger and, as of yesterday morning–and I think I've calmed down a bit–absolute rage. * (11:20) The reason for that is–and I would ask the members of the committee and the audience, if I am exaggerating what I am going to read, if you don't believe me, go to cjob.com and click onto the audio vault.

Barry Burns, the announcer, stated: Premier Gary Doer believes his government is doing the right thing by offering up to two-thirds inflation COLA increase to retired teachers. Then they had a sound clip from Mr. Doer. I say that the smiling Mr. Doer said: There are some people who think we should be using taxpayers' money to pay for 100 percent COLA increases. We believe that this is a good compromise. It's expensive for the taxpayer; it is mo re dignified for retired teachers. I–and this is the Premier–cannot believe that we are spending money–and then he laughed or chuckled–and we're getting flack.

He paused and then said: That comes with the territory. That was when I nearly choked on my toast I was eating at 10 o'clock in the morning. I have a number of questions. I don't expect any answers but, since this is my show for the next 10 minutes, this is what I want to do. My questions:

(1) Why was the plebiscite held?

(2) Was this voting exercise a plan to show all active and retired teachers and general taxpayers that those opposing the Sale report and Bill 45 were a small, vocal, greedy, misinformed group of retirees?

(3) Does the government hold these hearings in the same light as the plebiscite, that is, protest, talk all you want, but Bill 45 really is set in stone?

740 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2008

(4) Supporters for the Sale report and Bill 45 stated that mistakes were made in the past. However, they said, the past is the past; get over it. If I hear this one more time, I will get physically sick in this room.

(5) Who made the decision to pay full COLA when the auditors were warning for 20 years that this part of our pension was not sustainable? Who was doing this? Who?

(6) Why did the present government refuse to increase pension contributions when MTS requested a 2 percent increase and th e government only agreed to 1.1? Did MTS have information that the 2 percent increase was necessary to maintain our main pension fund? Is our main pension plan sustainable with 1.4 active teachers contributing and 7 greedy retirees withdrawing? Are there warnings that will be ignored, similarly to the COLA issue? Did MTS and their yes campaign clearly inform the members that, in the next 10 years, they may receive a COLA anywhere from zero to two-thirds CPI?

All I've heard is two- thirds, two-thirds, two- thirds. I didn't hear up to. The last question that I have is: When did MTS become a spokesperson for the government? Numerous individuals stated that to return our COLA to a healthy state will require more money than the government can afford. How do they know this? The government just borrowed $1.5 billion to pay back the teachers. I heard yesterday they also borrowed $1.8 billion to put into the civil servants. If I'm wrong, someone will correct me. Can you borrow money?

Where's the $135 million coming from that is supposed to be going into the COLA portion over the next 10 years? Now, for my written presentation–I hope I have some time yet. My name is Norm Grywinski. I've been an educator who has been retired for the past five years. I retired at the age of 63, and the reason was that I did not believe the words coming from the government, the words coming from MTS. I believed the auditors. I have heard for years that, if you do not increase your payments, your fund is in trouble. So, in the eight years that I worked extra, I topped up my registered retirement plans to the max.

I saved. I think I'm in better shape than some of the individuals that are coming up here. Maybe they were more trusting. I wasn't. It's not my nature not to trust people, but something told me: Work longer. And I'm absolutely delighted that I did this. I guess, I may say that I'm not in agreement with most of the recommendations of the Sale report. I strongly oppose the proposed Bill 45 legislation. During my four years of retirement, I have seen my purchasing power of my pension diminish each year. This is due to the fact that COLA was less than CPI.

I believe the adoption of the Sale report, in Bill 45, will not address the erosion of my pension for the next 10 years. I am insulted and dismayed by the take it or leave it attitude of the Honourable Peter Bjornson, who I'm assuming has the complete support of the NDP government on this pension issue. I am also at a complete loss to understand the following. How can the Teachers' Society support a report on a bill that will negatively impact all present and future retired teachers to pensions that will be reduced by inflation in the next 10 years?

Now, I am ashamed to admit that until I retired my interest in my pension plan and COLA was minimal, I actually assumed that all was well with my plan. Any time I was told to increase my contributions, I did. However, I have since learned that this assumption was absolutely wrong. As a working educator, I now see that I should have been more actively involved in questioning the wisdom of decision-makers during the last 15 years in regard to what was happening to our pensions. The lack of interest that I had I believe still exists with many educators to this day.

The fact that only 44 percent of all 25,000, now I hear it's 33,000, active and retired teachers, and the ones that are on leave, whatever, voted in the recent MTS plebiscite, demonstrates to me a lack of concern and interest. Others, for both sides, may say, if you didn't vote yes, that means you supported it. If you didn't vote no, it means that you knew you didn't have a chance to even get your thoughts on paper. The plebiscite, the results were 52 percent yes and 48 percent no. This minimal difference of 497 yes votes, in my opinion, is not a resounding endorsement of the Sale report.

I'm wondering why the plebiscite was held. I believe that MTS and the government felt that, with the advertising, with the information that they could pass to the general membership, they would have a– Mr. Chairperson: One minute remaining.

July 24, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 741 Mr. Grywinski: –resounding vote that would strongly support both the government and MTS. I suggest that this was a failure. The yes campaign–I said full page; I hear that it was half-page–ads, did not appear to convince an overwhelming majority of individuals of the wonderful benefits of the Sale report. I would ask the members of this committee to refer to–and I will give it to you. I attached three documents, the January 3, RTAM letter to the Minister of Education (Mr.

Bjornson), January 24, RTAM board response to the Sale report and January 14, RTAM 2008 press release. I am in full agreement with these three reports. In conclusion, retired educators do not magically change into cranky, misinformed, greedy seniors the moment they retire. As one of these individuals– Mr. Chairperson: We're at the 10-minute mark. I appreciate that you're in your conclusion, but– Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Chairperson: We have leave in lieu of questions. Thank you. Mr.

Grywinski: As one of these individuals, I am requesting that the government of the day revise Bill 45 to fully address the legitimate concerns of thousands of retired and soon-to-be retired educators. The final thing that I would like to say is I am positive that there will be another hearing 10 years from now. I hope I'm here and I'll probably be crankier like some people have said, that many of the teachers that are working right now, when they realize that it is not two-th irds, it's up to two-thirds, 0.7.

They will also be here, saying, we did not understand and we did not fully comprehend what the government was proposing. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your– [interjection] Order. Just for everyone's information– I know this has come up before, but for those who may not have been here previously, the rules that apply in the Chamber are the same rules that apply in committee. Members of the public, when they are attending committee or when they are in the gallery of the Chamber, are not allowed to participate through applause or any sort of comment at all.

So we would ask you to respect the rules of the Legislature in this regard. With that said, we'll now pose questions with the time remaining for our presenter. * (11:30) Mr. Schuler: Yes, thank you very much. Mr. Grywinski, it's great to sit at a table again and hear you present. I miss those days from the school board where you were an assistant superintendent. Your presentation was done with the same integrity and credibility as you made presentations when I was a school trustee. It's great to see you again. Again, I mean what we are talking about isn't a COLA or a guaranteed two-thirds.

We're actually talking about an offer of less than two-thirds. It cannot be greater than. It's two-thirds or less, so it's less than two-thirds. Clearly, the committee has h eard that. You've been part of a lot of negotiations. You and I sat at the same table and talked about it. Take whatever time is left if you need. You tell us in your learned opinion, where should we be going from here, and you know, keeping in mind the division between–like all educators, whether you're active or retired, you're all educators. You're professionals. Where should we be going? Mr.

Grywinski: I believe the government has the power to do whatever th ey feel is right. They borrowed money to put into the main pension plan. They borrowed money to put into civil servants' plan. They can borrow money. I don't know where the $135 million is coming from. Are they borrowing it? Do they have a surplus fund? What are they doing? Governments have–and I'm not going to mention specific cases because I don't want someone arguing saying this is not similar, but governments have addressed issues that have been simmering for over a hundred years and some of them have been rectified recently.

A lot of times money was involved. The issue is money. Perhaps I can just digre ss a bit. MTS, in my 41 years that I have been as an educator, I have never heard once MTS ever advising negotiating committees dealing with trustees–never say to yourself, can the trustees afford this? You went in with a shopping list that you felt was fair, and then you negotiated. If you coul dn't reach an agreement, you went to arbitration, and that's the way things were held. Why is it that The MTS now is saying there is no money and we should not be asking for either a full COLA or a full guarantee for two-thirds?

Are they now going to start advising their negotiating committees when they negotiate with the trustees: Trustees are saying they haven't got any money, they haven't got enough money from the

742 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2008 government, so stop asking for smaller class sizes, stop asking for cost-of-living increases? It just goes on and on and on. Mr. Lamoureux: I guess it's almost just a comment in regard to your open ing remarks. There are a number of questions that you pose as many other presenters have put forward. Many of those questions will be put to the minister and his staff once we get out of the public presentation part when the MLAs kind of go into the clause by clause, and if you're able to be here for that part, you'll hear it first- hand.

Otherwise, you can get a printed copy for it. We go way beyond our time if we started to answer questions about why the plebiscite. I'm forming opinions on that. I'm forming opinions on a lot of things as I'm sure other committee members are. There will be a written, if you're not here, response to many of the questions that you raise. Mr. Grywinski: Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Grywinski, you have 15 seconds. Mr. Grywinski: Mr. Schuler and Mr. Lamoureux, if you're elected as the majority government next time, can you see that you put screens on the windows here?

I think it is disgraceful that we open it up when governments are advertising check your screens and things like this and for three days we have been fighting mosquitoes, killer moths and sand flies coming into this room. You may laugh. You think it's funny. Governments have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars spraying the entire province– Mr. Chairperson: Order. Time has expired. Mr. Grywinski: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your time. Mr. Grywinski: This has been better than a workout. Mr. Chairperson: The committee now calls No. 18, Linda Asper. Just as Ms.

Asper is taking the podium, I have two pieces of information for the committee. One is a substitution. Committee Substitution Mr. Chairperson: I'd like to make the following membership substitution, effective immediately, for the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development meeting on July 24, 2008, for the Conservative caucus: Mr. Briese for Mrs. Mitchelson. * * * Mr. Chairperson: Also, for the committee's information, the aforementioned speaker, No. 161 on our list, Mr.

Alfred Dubé, has now phoned in and indicated that he won't be attending and has no submission, so his name can be removed from the list as a withdrawal. We want to thank and apologize to our translation staff for their attendance here today– [interjection]–yes, it's a good point, thank you. If there is anyone else in the audience right now, who would like to present en français , please indicate immediately to the back of the room, or even just put your hand up. Not seeing anyone, we'll allow our hard-working translation staff to head back to their daily routine. Thank you for your patience, Ms. Asper.

You have a copy of your presentation, and you may begin. Ms. Linda Asper (Private Citizen): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's good to see that individuals, such as yourself, have made it to the Chair in terms of your career. The last time I had to deal with you, of course, was about the Ralph Connor house in your constituency. It's good to see you in this context. I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee on Bill 45.

As you may guess, I am a member of the Retired T eachers' Association of Manitoba and, as such, I rely on this organization to represent me, lobby on my behalf and look after my well-being as a retired teacher. I expect that of RTAM and not of any other organization. Fortunately for myself, I have been content to watch from the sidelines as I enjoy my retirement activities.

With the information, however, that I have been receiving from RTAM about Bill 45 and the events leading up to its proposal, I have put those pleasant activities aside to come today to support publicly the position that RTAM has taken on Bill 45. I wish to congratulate my brothers and sisters who have been at the mike, since I came to get a flavour of these hearings last night, for not only the research but also the dedication they've put into their presentations as members of RTAM. I would like to

July 24, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 743 single out our leadership, Pat Bowslaugh and Anne Monk for their roles. Last time I addressed the legislative committee was in August '83 when, as president of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, I spoke in favour of the proposed government legislation regarding due process for teachers, which subsequently became law. It was hoisted for approximately six months. I mention that because I have heard some of my brothers and sisters talk about that as an intermediary step for this legislation.

It's very painful for me–and I want to stress the word "painful"–to have to speak against some of these amendments, especially since I served as MLA for Riel from 1999 to 2003 in this government's term of office. It's very disturbing to me, as an NDP member and a worker in the last election–I note that my MLA for whom I voted is sitting at the table here–to find that this government fails to support its retired teachers regarding our pensions, specifically the COLA issue, in the extent that RTAM has requested.

Regardless of this opposition, however, I want you to know that I value and respect my former colleagues in the House, on all sides, and don't envy you the task of these hearin gs and the emotions that are involved. First, let me comment on my perception of the process. RTAM is a relatively new organization in the Manitoba educational scene. It brings together retired teachers of all political persuasions, different educational careers, as you know, and of many needs and aspirations.

We represent a wealth of knowledge and experience. * (11:40) I do hope that there will be an improvement in your relationship with RTAM. I understand, for example, that RTAM heard about the plebiscite results through the media. That doesn't sound like positive communication channels to me. Should not the president or her designate have been contacted and given the results? If I were still a politician, I would be courting RTAM, both at the provincial and local level, that is, the RTAM

chapter in my constituency. I urge you to treat RTAM with respect as a player and an advocate in the educational community. I also suggest, in terms of process, that senior citizens, that is, RTAM members, who are as old as 105 years, should not be subjected to hearings held only in the evening from 6 p.m. to midnight, and, as we heard one of the presenters earlier say, it doesn't end there. There is also the sleepless night that follows, because we take this very seriously. Last night, when I left at 12:20, I chatted with two RTAM members from Portage.

They were going to get into their car–I assessed them at being, in age, in their 70s–and drive to Portage. One of them cancelled his activity today to be here, that cost him $80, I might add, so that he could continue with his dedication to this task. Was it not possible to have at least one day-time hearing before this to facilitate the presence of our members? As I mentioned, some of our members don't go out at night. If they do, they live out of town and do not want to travel home in the dark.

I, personally, even though I'm not in my 70s yet, do, I'm very reluctant to be on our streets after 10 o'clock in Winnipeg. Some of our members are being deprived of the opportunity to address you directly in person, given this meeting

schedule that you've held. Now, I know you have this additional meeting this morning, but this could have been done earlier so our members could have participated more fully. Again, on process, I participated in a plebiscite regarding my pension, and I voted no to the question asked. Unfortunately, not all RTAM members had the same opportunities that I did to review, digest, discuss, and try to understand the matter at hand. I know that because of the phone calls that came in to our house, not necessarily for me, because I'm not the expert on pensions, but my husband has been.

Not all live in the city or were in the province in the time line given to respond. I think that the plebiscite process was flawed. It did not provide the right conditions for RTAM members to participate fully. Despite the ample resources that were poured into the yes side of the plebiscite, there was the 47 percent vote against the matter, which, in my mind, is solid opposition. This bill should not be motivated by or defended by the plebiscite results. I've mentioned again that I don't pretend to be an expert in teacher pensions.

However, I do believe that the amendments in Bill 45 do not produce a long-term solution and provide no certainty of an adequate COLA for retired teachers, and I've summarized it in that sentence. You've had many presentations identifying the areas in that, so I have decided not to go into detail.

744 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2008 I contributed, as others who have expressed themselves, to the pension fund during my educational career, with an understanding that I would be treated fairly. Other presenters, as I say, have elaborated on these concerns with the specific amendments, so I am not going into detail. My main concern, however, is the effect of an inadequate COLA of the past as well as the impact of this Bill 45 on those retired teachers with small pensions. The majority of these retired teachers are women, and, again, other presenters have addressed this.

The reasons for their small pensions can be attributed to societal circumstances under which these women worked, such as the absence of the right to maternity leave, the absence of adequate child care, past policies of some employers to terminate female contracts when they married– Mr. Chairperson: One minute remaining. Ms.

Asper: –or when they became pregnant, child- bearing years that interrupted female teachers' careers and thus their pension contributions, women denied promotion to positions of responsibility and thus greater pension contributions, biases against older women and immobility for employment and promotions on the part of women due to expectations to defer to a husband's career location. For a government that takes pride in the number of women elected to the Legislature, I would hope that it would have the well-being of these retired female teachers at heart as they live their last years.

It has really struck me and what I've heard since the early yesterday evening, the number of people speaking here who have referred to are you hoping that I will I die and the problem will go away. I mean, you know, this gives you an idea of the fear and what is in our brothers and sisters retired teachers' minds. So I would hope that you would have the well- being of these retired female teachers at heart as they live out their last years needing adequate protection against erosion to their pension incomes. To summarize– Mr. Chairperson: Order. We've reached the 10- minute mark. Ms.

Asper: –I ask you to improve your relationship with RTAM and accept and respect its role as an advocate for retired teachers. I really don't think the Premier (Mr. Doer) realizes what he's let happen here, but you're going to have a very strong or stronger political force on the educational scene as a result of this fiasco. And to reconsider the amendments in Bill 45 that do not give a fair COLA to retired teachers and, in particular, to improve the situation of retired teachers who receive small pensions, the majority of whom are women.

Much advice has been given to you in the presentations opposing aspects of Bill 45. There should be room for government to review the amendments in light of this feedback and modify accordingly. I wish you well in that process. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Questions? Mr. Schuler: Yes. Dr. Asper, it's great to see you back at this Legislature. Although we did sit on opposite sides of the House, I always had amazing respect for you, and again, the integrity with which you conducted yourself as an MLA, you did today again in your presentation.

You made a very telling observation, the Premier doesn't probably realize, you know, the impact, or however it was that you worded it. Actually, I would have to tell you I don't think any of us did. You know, we've sort of come to this committee, and the presentations, the emotion, you know, the fear that you talk about, I mean the kinds of things that were said over the last three days and now today, the fourth day, have actually been shocking. I've said to the group here before, that I go home and I find it difficult to sleep because of the kinds of things I've heard.

I mean, it really is an emotional process to go through. So I think for all of us it's been a really interesting process, and it's been a good process to get this out in the open because I think we as legislators, we as a Manitoba Legislature, now have heard the impact of our decisions on men and women and, predominantly, I think, on women, and really appreciate you coming forward, for the patience you've had to wait this long. As always, great to see you again at the Manitoba Legislature. Mr. Chairperson: I didn't hear a question in that, but if you want to comment, you may, Ms. Asper. Ms.

Asper: Neither did I, but when I saw Ron for the first time in five years last night, I asked him if he was a grandfather yet. Of course, he informed me he's still at the teenage years. I personally can't think of anybody that I wish more the teenage years to as a parent.

July 24, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 745 Mr. Chairperson: Wow. Mr. Lamoureux, if you dare. * (11:50) Mr. Lamoureux: Yeah, I won't go there, but I think that you bring to the table a very interesting perspective. You've heard many of the presenters talk and appeal, in particular, to government members in hopes–and there is an expectation. Some made reference to a flic ker of hope that the government would do the right thing, listen to the presentations and then act accordingly, whether it's, as the Conservatives are suggesting, a six-month hoist, which has a great deal of merit, to scrapping the bill.

The presentations from at least the retired teachers' perspectives have been very clear. You've sat on the government benches inside the committee. You're familiar with the structure and what will likely happen. Is there anything that you could leave or the type of message that you could leave with the government members as to what they should be doing with regard to this bill? It took a lot of courage for you to even make a presentation because of your past affiliations.

What one message would you give to the government members of this committee in terms of opening their minds to, hopefully, doing something with regard to this bill? Ms. Asper: Thank you for the question. I think that, having had similar experiences to what the government MLAs at the table are going through right now, first of all, step back and have a deep breath and try to get the threads that are throughout the presentations in terms of the points where there is some commonality. By that I mean listen to RTAM and try to come to grips with some the ideas that the president and others have expressed.

Others have said that the problem needs to be dealt with; of course, it does. I congratulate the players in trying to deal with the problem which has been ther e for many years, but I don't think Bill 45 is your solution. I think you have to step back and take a look at some of your amendments in light of what has been said. I guess my main point is listen to retired teachers. I don't know, from your process, that that has happened enough. That's what we're all here doing, trying to ask you to do that.

The situations– I'm very sad about the stories I heard last night, about some of my colleagues and their financial situations. That's why I put an emphasis on teachers, particularly women with small pensions, so you look at that group as one of the needs. I'm sure my former colleagues in government will take this advice and, at least, re-examine and, as I say, I hope the Premier (Mr. Doer) listens. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for time with us, Ms. Asper.

For the committee, just before I call the next name, we have received some more written submissions from the following persons: No. 118 on our speakers' list, Daniel Kiazyk; Margaret Hamilton is No. 179 on the list and Eugene Yarish, No. 147, and before you ask, yes, he is related to our hard- working Clerk, distantly. That needs to be emphasized, apparently. So No. 118, Daniel Kiazyk; No. 147, Eugene Yarish; No. 179, Margaret Hamilton, can be noted as written submissions and deleted from your active speakers' list.

Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in Hansard transcript? [Agreed] The next name on our list, No. 19, Aubrey Asper. Thank you for the written copies, sir. You may begin your presentation when you're ready. Mr. Aubrey Asper (Private Citizen): Mr. Chairperson, members of the committee, this will be anticlimactic after the previous speaker, at least, and certainly after the presentations. Incidentally, on both sides, I was impressed with the representation from MTS, as well as those of my new group that I'm associated with, the retired teachers.

I've made my presentation deliberately short because, in terms of the background and the necessary information, that has already been presented. I've been here since the beginning, Monday night. I've heard it all.

Now some of the submissions I didn't see or hear because they were written submissions given to you and no one at the podium read from those, but I do think that the background that you've already provided on the anti- Bill 45 side from people like Tom Ulrich and Anne Monk, and certainly the excellent presentations from MTS on the other side, the executive members, is sufficient, and I don't intend to repeat any of that. I, also, as a

preamble, want to mention, as Linda Asper did, this is extremely difficult for me. Given my long association with the Manitoba Teachers'

746 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2008 Society, this is the first time I've ever had to speak in a public forum where I am not supporting a position that they've taken, and I don't do it lightly. Again, if I may now refe r to the written part of what I want to say. Thank you for the opportunity to present my personal reaction to Bill 45, which, if enacted, would legislate, among other things, provisions for cost-of- living adjustments for Manitoba retired teachers.

Since some members of the committee do not know me, I would like to mention that I have served 42 years in education, 40 of which have been in this province. In that time, I served seven years on the provincial executive of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, including a term as its president. My first 19 years of my career were also in the classroom as a mathematics teacher. The final 20 years of my career were spent on the staff of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, retiring as its general secretary.

I mention these facts not to suggest I bring a special expertise, and I emphasize that, not to suggest I bring a special expertise to teacher pension issues, but rather to seek understanding of my long- term historical attachment to the advocacy for improvement in educational conditions. This would include early involvement in the improvement in teacher pensions going back to the 1963 legislation which introduced the defined benefit model, the combined final earnings service model for determining pensions. I also was involved in some of the things that preceded that.

Madam Vice-Chairperson in the Chair I chaired pension committees of the day and also, as a staff member, initially was attached to the pension responsibilities. In later years I had a more peripheral involvement in pension issues, and I've been retired, I retired at nearly 64 years of age, and I've been retired for 15 years. In appearing before this committee, first and foremost, I wish to express support for RTAM and its positions in reaction to the proposed legislation. I would concede that the funding changes proposed for the Pension Adjustment Account, if unconditional, seem to be an acceptable improvement.

The neglect in this area over the past number of years has exacerbated a problem which was flagged some years earlier. The concerns in other areas, as expressed in the RTAM submission, have been identified and will not be repeated here, except to say, again, that, as an individual RTAM member, I urge you to address these matters with appropriate remedies. * (12:00) I ask that the committee and the Legislature keep in mind that the group immediately and directly impacted by this legislation is largely opposed to it, retired teachers.

If passed, the appearance to me is that government is imposing legislation directed at solving its own problems regarding the nuisance of years of complaints rather than finding a resolution to the present problem of current pensioners. This implies that either government can do no better or believes that it knows what is best for current retired teachers. If it is the first, respectfully I must disagree; and if the second, that bears the appearance of condescension. It would concern me if the government has rationalized its introduction of Bill 45 based on the flawed plebiscite process of the late spring.

I do not know what proportion of the response in this vote was from active teachers or retired teachers. I do know that considerable resources were used to encourage the yes vote on the part of active teachers. Beyond that, there were many failures in the process which introduced many elements of unfairness, and these have been alluded to by other people. I don't need to go through that again. Evidence of the unreliability of the plebiscite and its result is the opposition to Bill 45 faced by this committee today, tonight, last night.

If the committee cannot propose amendments to satisfy the concerns raised within the RTAM submission or cannot provide remedies for the unacceptable provisions of Bill 45, I suggest an interim measure of relief fo r current retired teachers would be in order.

I believe it would be consistent with the RTAM position if there be an unconditional implementation–and there's an obvious typo here– implementation of the proposed change in calculation of funding income for the Pension Adjustment Account, a granting in the current year of a COLA at least equivalent to that contemplated by Bill 45 and deferring the other contested matters to the next session of the Legislature.

The expectation would be that those affected by the COLA–most affected by the COLA–issues in the near term would, through their representation by RTAM, be afforded an opportunity to obtain a satisfactory resolution of this problem. It is my belief that meaningful discussion with the stakeholders and

July 24, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 747 especially RTAM could bring about that satisfactory conclusion. I just want to make one other observation, because it popped into my mind. I guess what disturbs me about both the bill and the position of support that it has received from MTS is that there seems to have been a focus from those parties on the issue of maintaining the sustainability of the core pension. That's important. I don't dismiss that.

Where I think the weakness has been is that that strong focus has not allowed sufficient attention to be devoted to the more immediate problems faced by a large number of retired teachers, and that issue, of course, relates to the maintaining of income against the ravages of inflation. So I do think that that's where if–I hesitate to use the word "failure"–but that's certainly the thing that I'm concerned wasn't sufficiently well addressed because what is in Bill 45, as you've heard from so many others, doesn't offer the solution or an adequate solution. Thank you. Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you.

Questions for the presenter. Mr. Schuler: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Asper, for taking the time to sit here night after night waiting for your opportunity to speak, and, you know, after having heard Dr. Asper and now having been able to hear you–I've, of course, worked a lot with Dr. Asper, your wife. You know that saying that behind every successful woman there is a man, and we finally met him. Now we know why she is so successful and very nice meeting you. I just want to refer to a presentation that was made a while ago, and I'd like to quote from it: You know it's interesting.

I was a delegate to the 1993 MTS AGM and I went back to review what our organization was saying about inflation protection at that time; 1993 was a significant year–it mentions you–Aubrey Asper, who is making a presentation at these hearings, was the MTS general secretary. He then mentions Terry Clifford, Anne Monk, Tom Ulrich, and says, you, the committee, concluded that the provision for inflation protection is adequately addressed in the present arrangement at the current level of inflation. Can you explain to us what this individual means with this statement?

It caused quite a bit of consternation at the committee. Could you just clarify that for us? Mr. Asper: Well, certainly, I was still general secretary in 1993. The gentleman who indicated that in his submission had talked to me and, in a sense, I had some forewarning that there was going to be a reference to the 1993 AGM, though not to me, personally. As general secretary, I suppose I have responsibility for everything that goes on, but I would point out that reports of committees, and this was excerpted from such a report, these are not vetted by the provincial executive, or by staff.

They are reports for information that go to the membership through the AGM, and, should anyone wish to act on any recommendations in such a report, and so on, the AGM would do that. I'm not trying to duck responsibility, because, certainly, within a month after that, I was gone, and it would have been referred to the incoming committee. What happened to it, I don't know, because I closed the door when I walked out and tried to pursue other interests. I don't know what is meant.

If there is a suggestion that I had some responsibility for what is written in that report, I did, to the extent that, I suppose, the general secret ary has for all operations of the society. It went forward as information. Mr. Lamoureux: If I was a teacher during the '70s, '80s and '90s, and just continued to be in the classroom, quite often you build kind of an expectation, if you just kind of have a bit of trust in those interest groups that are there to advocate on your behalf. It was an interesting document. It was the Manitoba Teachers' Society '75-76 handbook.

I read from this, and it goes, in part: For a full effect of the change in consumer price index for the years '72, '74, '75, and then you hear from individuals such as yourself. It seems to me that there would have been a mindset in terms of the COLA issue, pensions, and people seem to be of the opinion that everything was okay.

Again, if I'm just a teacher, like, I'm a member of MTS, but I'm just there in the classroom, I'm enjoying what I'm doing and I have no aspirations to be getting involved in the internal politics, I'm very reliant on the government and MTS to be protecting my pension issue, especially if I'm at a younger age. You tend not necessarily to really follow it.

748 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2008 Would you provide maybe comment on that? Madam Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Asper, and you have about 20 seconds. Mr. Asper: Well, I think your observation is correct. You heard it from many of the retirees who appeared here today, that it wasn't until they were very directly impacted by what was happening that it got their attention. Yeah, there was an expectation people would look after them, and I understand that. * (12:10) Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Asper. The committee calls Karen Wiebe. Ms. Wiebe, do you have a written submission? Okay.

The Clerk will come and take that from you and circulate it. You can proceed. Ms. Karen Wiebe (Private Citizen): Okay, thank you. Madam Vice-Chairperson: Maybe you just want to bring the mike down just a little bit. Thank you. Ms. Wiebe: Good afternoon, and thank you for holding this committee meeting regarding Bill 45 and giving us an opportunity to speak at it. My name is Karen Wiebe. I come to you today as a private citizen. I've been a music teacher for 32 years.

I started my career in the Hanover School Division, and I've spent the last 27 years in the former Fort Garry School Division and now the Pembina Trails School Division. I've taught all levels from grade 5 to 12 and am currently teaching English at the Fort Richmond Collegiate. I've been involved in my local teacher association, an association of 1,100 teachers, since I started teaching and I have served as chair of several professional development committees as vice-presiden t, president and past president. Currently, I am on my third term as an elected member for the Manitoba Teachers' Society.

I'm here presenting to you to show my support for Bill 45. One of the biggest concerns of every Manitoban is retirement, and teachers have long put their faith in TRAF. So, when I say that a COLA is important to every teacher, past, current and future, I'm speaking about my own concerns about COLA as well as speaking as a long-time member of the plan. The current government asked former Cabinet minister Tim Sale to review the cost-of-living adjustment for retired teachers and come up with recommendations as to how to provide some sort of reasonable COLA for the fu ture.

As long as I have sat on the provincial executive of the society and for many years before that, there has been much discussion as to what the needs of retired teachers are and how to address those needs. I would say that it is time to address those needs now. Mr. Sale's proposal makes some excellent points that I support. His first point: All future benefit changes must be actuarially sound, and then later on in his discussion about that: and properly funded. The last three words, "and properly funded," are added in the notes after the recommendation.

I hope that the minister will take them as part of the actual recommendation. As far as the recommendation itself, it appears to me that we got into this mess because we did not heed the warnings of the actuaries of the day. It has long been of concern to me that when professionals are hired for their expertise, some choose to ignore their advice. That often creates all kinds of problems and has, in this case, also done so. Mr. Sale suggests that this first recommendation should be a binding policy to the TRAF board. I agree. However, there is not presently a mechanism to make it binding.

I suggest that a mechanism be created in order to make this a binding policy. I believe that it is incumbent that we listen to the advice of those we pay for their expertise. Number 2: The current contribution level may not be sufficient to sustai n the basic benefit. Mr. Sale's report and Bill 45 provide a mechanism to get more money into the account that pays a COLA for retired teachers. As a member of the plan, I hope that the minister will agree to at least a 1 percent in funding to the plan in the future.

That will bring it close to the 2 percent that we asked for in the past in order to increase the amount of money going into the account to pay for COLA for retirees. Number 3: The appropriate goal for COLA is two-thirds CPI. There is no guarantee of a COLA for retired teachers. Right no w the COLA account can afford to pay almost nothing in terms of COLA. It is important to have reasonable goals that can be achieved rather than goals that will never be achieved. In fact, it was caving into the expectations of the retirees of the day that contributed to the failing of this fund. A two- thirds cap on COLA is

July 24, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 749 reasonable and will help to ensure that the fund is maintained. Number 4: The current level of the PAA is insufficient to provide meaningful COLAs. In order to ensure that a COLA is at all achievable, it is important to put a plan into place. The creation of a reserve fund whose earnings may only be used leaving the capital in place is a creative and smart move to fund the COLA for the future. Regular contributions to this fund will ensure that the fund is working for future generati ons of teachers and not only those who are currently retired.

Number 5: A 10-year catch-up for the PAA in earnings credited to the P AA. This is a prudent and seamless way to smooth over an opportunity to fund the PAA so that it will be able to pay up to a two- thirds COLA in the future. It will lead the way into a larger fund that is better funded to support the COLA. Number 6: Creation of a larger PAA comprised of the current PAA and a reserve account. It is an excellent idea that would help to ensure the COLA for the future. Number 7: Creating a PAA in the provincial share of the fund. This is not part of the bill but is part of Mr. Sale's recommendations.

I appreciate that the Province is showing that it intends to match payments for COLA from the account investment invested with TRAF. It seems a good step for the province to establish a P AA account within its share of the fund to mirror the teachers' half of the fund. Number 8: Streamlining the process of amending the TRAF act. Bill 45 makes provisions that streamlined amendments to our pension plan to avoid having to pass legislation every time a minor change is required.

This recommendation is appreciated by all members of the plan as it would facilitate the changing of minor items by use of regulation rather than through the time lines and use of legislative time. In closing, I would like to thank Mr. Sale for his work on behalf of Manitoba teachers, and it is my hope that his report will lead to supporting a fair and equitable COLA of all teachers in the future. Thank you for making time to hear these presentations. Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you very much. Are there questions for the presenter? Mr.

Lamoureux: You've been here virtually from the beginning of all the presenters or– Ms. Wiebe: No, I haven't heard all the presenters. Mr. Lamoureux: A great deal of the presenters have been raising the issue of the plebiscite. The government, back in early June, had indicated that the teachers were behind this because of the plebiscite, and I remember we even had one of those discussions inside the Ch amber. Having said that, there was originally a lot of credibility given to the plebiscite. Now, we hear that, you know, the decision for a non-binding plebiscite was made on April 22.

May 13, the ballots were mailed out. May 26, 12 o'clock noon was the deadline. You're familiar with the numbers. A number of presenters have called into question the validity of the whole plebiscite, the way in which it was conducted. It was expedited. Why was it expedited? Why did it have to happen? I'm told that the government indicated it had to bring in the legislation. It had no choice, which wasn't necessarily accurate information being provided. There's this cloud of suspicion. What I'm not hearing from the presenters that are in favour of Bill 45 is an opinion on the plebiscite itself.

I've heard people say: By the time I got the ballot, it was too late to cast my vote. I received an empty envelope. Given the numbers, do you give any credibility to the plebiscite that was conducted? Should we as legislators be giving it credibility? Ms. Wiebe: First of all, I just want to address the fact that I didn't address the plebiscite. I felt that our call here was to talk about the Sale report and the recommendations, so that's what I prepared to present. I think it is completely erroneous to think that there were retired teachers only that did not receive ballots.

There were active teachers that did not receive their ballots as well. I think the time line was very tight. Whether it contributed to a 52 percent to a 48 percent vote, I can't say that. I think it was tight. I would have preferred there to be more time so that there could have been correction for those people that didn't get their ballots or those people that were out of town. I'm not quite sure why there was such a hurry for it, but there was for some reason. I would like to have seen more time with that.

The issue about whether that affected the vote, I can't say that because the reality is that it wasn't just retired teachers that didn't receive. It was active teachers that didn't receive, whole schools that didn't receive from my understanding. I don't think that there was any move to secrecy or have a cloud over the plebiscite. My feeling is that that was a way the

750 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 24, 2008 government was trying to deal with the issue of fairness, and rather than to say the Teachers' Society wants this or RTAM wants that, this was an opportunity for them to say, okay, let's just shove aside what everybody is saying, put it out there for all teachers, and find out what they think. I believe that was done, in fairness, to avoid a cloud of suspicion, if you like. However, it was a little bit fast.

We could have used another week or even two weeks to make sure that everybody got it and that everybody was able to respond to it. * (12:20) Madam Vice-Chairperson: Seeing no other questions, we thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Wiebe. The committee calls Shelley Herbert. Once again, Shelley Herbert? Seeing that Ms. Herbert is not here, her name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. The committee calls Thelma Flom. Once again, Thelma Flom? Seeing that Ms. Flom is not here, her name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. The committee calls Warren Ogren. Thank you very much.

If you wanted to raise the mike up just a little bit, that would probably be helpful. That's great. Thank you, Mr. Ogren. You can proceed. Mr. Warren Ogren (Private Citizen): Before I start talking about my presentation, there are a couple of things I should probably say first. You'll notice that your presentation is all done in capital letters. If I had sent an e-mail out to anybody, I would have been accused of shouting. I'm not shouting. I just have a problem with typing. I'm a hunt-and-peck type person. It's easier to type in caps and it's also easier for me to read.

Second thing is that my name is Warren Ogren. I am not a retired teacher. I'm a spouse of a retired teacher. We both retired about seven years ago and both for medical reasons. Having said that, members of the legislative committee and others concerned with Bill 45, I'm appalled, frustrated, disappointed and angry that our provincial government does not live up to its contracts. It would appear that I'm also very naïve for thinking that when a government enters into a contract that it would actually abide by it.

Teachers negotiated a contract that would see them receive a maximum 100 percent annual COLA in their retirement. The up-front funding of teachers' pensions and COLA has come directly from the contributions of my wife and her colleagues, but the unfunded liability is owed solely by the government. But you already know that. What you don't know is that our future financial planning, prior to retirement, relied upon my wife's pension and COLA as a very important ingredient to our retirement, and why not? We thought it was a signed and sealed agreement.

We thought we were being prudent in our planning, but the government makes us look like we were short-sighted. We expected to have a reasonable quality of life during retirement, but we find our quality of life is deteriorating; our buying power is down and continues to shrink. Not only hasn't my wife received a reasonable COLA since she retired, but under the existing legislation for retired teachers, a surviving spouse only receives two-thirds of whatever COLA the retired teacher would ha ve received.

So I fear that should my wife predecease me, instead of receiving two-thirds of he r COLA, this government would have me receive only two-thirds of a maximum two-thirds COLA, which would likely translate to a zero increase if Bill 45 is passed. I have lost my faith in government for it would appear that they do not meet their commitments. As my family's buying power and that of 11,000 other retirees and their families goes down, our provincial economy will suffer, but it appears that the government just does not care about retired teachers nor the economy.

If it did, the government would honour its agreement with the retired teachers of Manitoba by legislating a fair and long-term solution to the underfunded COLA. Thank you for letting me speak. Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you. Are there questions for th e presenter? Seeing no questions, we thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Ogren. The committee calls Patricia Grafenauer. Hi, do you have a written submission? Ms. Patricia Grafenauer (Private Citizen): I have an oral presentation. Madam Vice-Chairperson: Please proceed. Ms. Grafenauer: Thank you.

I would like to thank the minister and the committee for this opportunity to speak in regard to Bill 45.

July 24, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 751 My name is Pat Grafenauer, and I am a more recent retiree, one year. I began teaching in 1969 in Thompson, Manitoba, and I moved to the River East Transcona School Division School in 1973. For a number of years I worked as a classroom teacher, and then I moved into the role of the teacher librarian. I then became the director of library programs and services for the River East Transcona School Division. I would like the committee to know that the preparation of this brief has been

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	39-2-sed11
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	39th 2nd hansardpdf sed11.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5b243cae2efe8a5be6b8c1e19c57fe7812c3e5c9

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