Manitoba Committee Hansard — 28 September 2009 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 8, 39th Legislature, 3rd Session)

39-3-la8

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session - Thirty-Ninth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs Chairperson Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff Constituency of Interlake Vol. LXI No. 8 - 6 p.m., Monday, September 28, 2009 ISSN 1708-668X

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 Thompson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli N.D.P. BLADY, Sharon Kirkfield Park N.D.P. BLAIKIE, Bill, Hon. Elmwood 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. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns N.D.P.

MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. 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 St. Boniface N.D.P.

STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. SWAN, Andrew Minto N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. WHITEHEAD, Frank The Pas N.D.P. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

205 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Monday, September 28, 2009 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Drew Caldwell (Brandon East) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Bjornson, Ch omiak, Lemieux, Hon. Ms. Wowchuk Messrs. Borotsik, Caldwe ll, Dewar, Graydon, Nevakshonoff, Pedersen, Schuler WITNESSES: Bill 8–The Civil Service Superannuation Amendment Act (Enhanced Manitoba Hydro Employee Benefits and Other Amendments) Ms. Pat Bowslaugh, Private Citizen Mr.

Richard Benoit, Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba Ms. Anne Monk, Private Citizen Ms. Peggy Prendergast, Private Citizen Mr. Dick Marshall, Private Citizen Mr. Wayne Hughes, Private Citizen Bill 35–The Municipal Conflict of Interest and Campaign Financing Act (Various Acts Amended) Mr. Ross Martin, Private Citizen Mr. Doug Dobrowolski, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Mr. Kevin Rebeck, CUPE Manitoba Mr. Gord Steeves, Councillor, City of Winnipeg Mr. Harvey Smith, Councillor, City of Winnipeg Mr. Jae Eadie, Private Citizen Mr.

George Fraser, Private Citizen Bill 36–The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Enhanced Compensation for Catastrophic Injuries) Ms. Jan Stevens, Private Citizen Ms.

Cherise Griffin, Private Citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 35–The Municipal Conflict of Interest and Campaign Financing Act (Various Acts Amended) Errol Black, Private Citizen Nick Ternette, Private Citizen Audra Ludwig, CUPE 500 Bill 36–The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Enhanced Compensation for Catastrophic Injuries) Steven David Bowley, Creator of NoFaultVictims.com MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 8–The Civil Service Superannuation Amendment Act (Enhanced Manitoba Hydro Employee Benefits and Other Amendments) Bill 35–The Municipal Conflict of Interest and Campaign Financing Act (Various Acts Amended) Bill 36–The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Enhanced Compensation for Catastrophic Injuries) Bill 37–The Public Schools Amendment Act (Limited At Large Elections of Trustees) * * * Clerk Assistant (Mr.

Greg Recksiedler): Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs please come to order. The first item of business is the election of a Chairperson. Are there any nominations for this position? Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): It's my pleasure to nominate Mr. Nevakshonoff. Clerk Assistant: Mr. Nevakshonoff has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Seeing none, no other nominations, Mr. Nevakshonoff, will you please take the Chair. Mr. Chairperson: Good evening. Thank you for your confidence in me. Our next item of business is

206 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 28, 2009 the election of a Vice-Chai rperson. Are there any nominations? Mr. Dewar: Yes, I nominate Mr. Caldwell. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Caldwell has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Seeing none, Mr. Caldwell is elected Vice-Chairperson.

This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill No. 8, The Civil Service Superannuation Amendment Act (Enhanced Manitoba Hydro Employee Benefits and Other Amendments); Bill No. 35, The Municipal Conflict of Interest and Campaign Financing Act; Bill No. 36, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Enhanced Compensation for Catastrophic Injuries); Bill No. 37, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Limited At Large Elections of Trustees). We have a number of presenters registered to speak this evening, as noted on the presenters' lists.

We have one addition to the list for the information of committee members. They are–that individual is Audra Ludwig, CUPE 500, on Bill 35. Before we proceed with the presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider. First of all, if there is anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation this evening, please register with staff at the entrance of the room.

Also, for the information of all presenters, while written versions of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompa ny your presentation with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies. If you need help with photocopying, please speak with our staff. As well, I would like to inform presenters that, in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations with another five minutes al lowed 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. A written submission on Bill 36 from Steven David Bowley has been received and distributed to committee members. Does the committee agree to have this document appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] Order of presentations.

On the topic of determining the order of public presentations, I will note that we do have out-of-town presenters in attendance marked with an asterisk on the list. With these considerations in mind then, in what order does the committee wish to hear presentations? Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): I would make a motion that we start with Bill 36 as we have two out-of-town presenters. Mr. Chairperson: Committee's heard. Agreed? [Agreed] We will start with Bill 36 then. I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjournment.

Except by unanimous consent, the standing committee meeting to consider a bill in the evening must not sit past midnight to hear presentations unless fewer than 20 presenters are registered to speak to all bills being considered when the committee meets at 6 p.m. The Clerk has raised an interesting point. After we do Bill 36 and go into other bills, we want to maintain the order of out-of-town presenters first. Is that acceptable? [Agreed] Okay. As of 6 p.m. this evening there were 19 persons registered to speak to these bills.

Therefore, according to our rules, this committee may sit past midnight to hear presentations. How late does the committee wish to sit tonight? Some Honourable Members: Until we're done. Mr. Chairperson: Would somebody like to make it a motion? Mr. Dewar: I suggest we sit here until all the business of this committee is concluded. Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Chairperson: Agreed as moved? [Agreed] Speaking in committee. Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee.

The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say the person's

September 28, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 207 name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn microphones on and off. Thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with public presentations. Bill 36–The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Enhanced Compensation for Catastrophic Injuries) Mr. Chairperson: Okay, we begin with Bill 36. The first presenter I have regi stered is Jan Stevens, private citizen. Good evening, Ms. Stevens. Do you have a written presentation? I see you do. Our assistants will distribute them. You may begin when ready. Ms.

Jan Stevens (Private Citizen): Mr. Chairman, I may run a minute or two past my time limit if I have difficulty up here. Would that be all right? Mr. Chairperson: We'll address that when you come to it. I have to put that to the committee. Ms. Stevens: All right. Dear committee members. My name is Jan Stevens and I have concerns about the proposed catastrophic definition, particularly relating to brain injury. * (18:10) Do you know how MPI determines a degree of impairment? They don't. My husband suffered a severe brain injury in an accident six years ago, and I can tell you for certain, they do not.

The most that has been done in regards to this is a psychological assessment that his trea ting physician requested, which stresses areas of impairment caused by his brain injury and includes therapy suggestions. I first had to fight with MPI a long time to have them pay for this assessment to be done. When it was completed, MPI sent the report to their independent psychologist for him to decide if the assessment has merit. A year and a half has passed and nothing more has happened.

Setting out a definition of catastrophic to allow increased benefits seems like a great idea, but if no fair procedures are followed to evaluate the existing permanent impairments, the catastrophic

definitions will follow the same fate. The proposed catastrophic definition that describes impairments due to brain injury are not in line with the impairments that a catastrophically impaired brain injured claimant experiences. I would like you to know how Ontario describes–determines catastrophic. They ask the claimant's treating physician to specifically identify if their patient suffers a catastrophic impairment.

On the doctor's form, the criteria includes a 55 percent or more impairment of the brain injured claimant based on an evaluation of the whole person, and that two years has elapsed since the accident and that the patient is not expected to improve. Once this form is completed, the catastrophic determination is made based on the treating physician's certification. Compare that to MPI' s existing procedure to determine brain injury impairments. Communication with the treating physicians is non-existent. MPI's procedure is to do whatever they can to get the claimant rehabbed and back to work.

They force them to attend their rehab centre and be seen by their independent assessment doctors, where a mirage of injustices begin. The word "independent" is very scary. The reports that come from them are full of misconception of the facts, downplaying serious symptoms of an injury and outright lying, all of which will be a benefit to MPI. This is a fact. I have seen it first-hand several times–[interjection] There's no Kleenex up here, though. I need–I need a Kleenex. Thank you. Years go by and they have exhausted their attempts to get this person off of income replacement.

Have they paid any amount for cognitive impairment due to their severe brain injury, or–excuse me, okay–or made a determination that a psychiatric syndrome exists, or addressed what brain functions have been altered? Not at all. How do they get away with it? They first off have their hired independent doctors state that the person's brain is functioning normally, that there are no impairments and that he is able to work. It seems it is their internal policy to have that in place early, so that when a true assessment is done they have a base to reject the issues quite easily.

Now do you see why there's such a fight to have a real psychological assessment done? If the claimant has no spouse or guardian to fight on their behalf, they have no hope of receiving the compensation they're entitled to. In my opinion, almost all brain injury cases would result in a permanent impairment of some sort, especially for moderate and severe brain injury.

208 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 28, 2009 So I wonder, of all the bodily injury claims that included a brain injury, how many of those have actually received a permanent impairment amount under the existing

definitions for brain injury impairments? Please refer to catastrophi c

definitions (d), (e), g(

v) and g(vii). There is a problem in having an alteration of the higher cognitive or integrative mental functions be limited to ability to eat, bathe and go to the bathroom, which is defined as activities of daily living and whether or not a caregiver is required, which is defined as requiring supervision. In reality, there is so much affected besides those activities of daily living. Many, if not all of life activities will be altered, yet they may still be able to eat, bathe and go to the bathroom on their own, and not require supervision.

Limiting brain injury to only those activities of daily living is absurd and simply not fair. For brain injury, you need to consider how the whole person is affected, like Ontario does. Many individuals with brain injuries experience impairments that manifest themselves in various symptoms of their body.

They can have a sleep disturbance; pain disorder; difficulty with awareness, memory, communi cation, concentration, organization, information processing and comprehension; motor disturbances to do with weakness, gait and manual dexterity; social problems due to slowed information processing; impaired judgement, impulse control, irritability, outbursts of rage or panic, aggression or withdrawal; depression and isolation due to socially unacceptable behaviour and inability to effectively interact with others; deficits in vision, hearing, taste and smell; vertigo, nausea, headache or tinnitus; seizure disorders; sexual dysfunction and bladder-control problems; inability to get along with others, outbursts, inappropriateness, lack of awareness of others; forgetfulness and lack of diplomacy can all be symptoms of brain injury.

They want it to be done by their hired independent who says he can't obtain accurate readings due to variables on the claimant's pain limitations. As a licensed, qualified practitioner, under the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the treating physician's measurements should have been used in the first place. Why would an independent's input be required? Each one of these deficits may not be significant taken alone, but the combination of deficits taken together can be so profound and limiting on every aspect of living that it can very well constitute a 55 percent impairment of the whole person.

Before the accident, my husband could do anything, from supervising a construction site to proposing business plans and public speaking. He could sing and dance; he was a social butterfly. He had great organizational skills. He was a go-getter. He could fix and build anything. He was my Mr. Tool Man. He can't do any of that now. He is just a prisoner in his own body, inflicted with many deficits from his brain injury, and as Ontario describes it, and I quote, in the case of catastrophically impaired persons, their injuries seriously and continuously impair their functioning and quality of life.

Even without the catastrophic proposal, it is an atrocity that MPI does not consider the treating physician's input. Here is one example of a claimant's injury to shoulder and bicep: The treating orthopedic surgeon assessed and provided MPI with the required measurements for loss of range of motion. That was almost three years ago. No payment made to date. Don't you think it's odd that the treating physician can obtain an accurate reading, but the independent cannot?

Don't you think it's odd that when the claimant has three treating physicians and specialists, and they all explain that the claimant is unable to return to work, yet the independent says he can? Don't you think it's odd that the treating psychologist finds massive amounts of brain injury impairments, yet the independent says he's normal? Consider this: The treating physicians are paid by Manitoba Health to diagnose and treat the patients. They are not paid by the claimant, nor by MPI. The independents are contracted and paid by MPI.

Regarding the proposed catastrophic definition for brain injury, No. (d)(ii), and I am addressing this question to the minister, a person has a brain injury that has caused a pain disorder so severe that he would have to be highly medicated and sedated in order for that pain to be alleviated. Being that medicated would put the person in a constant stupor and would qualify for catastrophic under (d)(ii), including adverse effects of medication. But what if the person chooses not to be that highly medicated and, instead, takes multi daily doses of morphine that only dull the pain slightly and chooses to live with

September 28, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 209 the constant pain, rather than be in a complete stupor, so that he has some sort of level of functioning? Mr. Chomiak, would this person qualify for a catastrophic determination? I have explained how the

definitions do not consider the multitude of symptoms and deficits that the brain-injured person must now live with permanently, and how the

definitions in no way recognize the whole person, and how every aspect of their life likely has changed. I have explained how permanent impairment decisions are made, if at all, in a most untimely manner. A catastrophic determination would be treated no differently using the same procedures. In Ontario, when a catastrophic determination is requested, their time frame is 30 days to evaluate whole-person impairment and make the decision. I have explained how the independent, so-called doctors are only in place to benefit MPI. They need to disappear.

They create months and years of unnecessary delay and their conclusions are not accurate or truthful; they are a waste of time and money. There is no reason why the treating physicians and specialists need to be second guessed. * (18:20) Suggestion: there needs to be changes made to the procedures at MPI's bodily injury department.

But since tonight is only about the catastrophic definition itself, the suggestion I have is to add another definition for catastrophic due to brain injury, incorporating the idea of whole-person impairment, the description being that their symptoms and deficits are so severe and disabling as to seriously and continuously impair their functioning and quality of life, and attach a procedure to this definition, asking the treating physicians to certify this with the criteria that two years have passed since the accident and that they are not expected to improve.

It needs to be that simple, an automatic decision without MPI referring it back to their independents. Otherwise, this new definition is useless. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Stevens. Because you had some difficulty, I allowed you to go a little long there. Ms. Stevens: Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: I'll open the floor to questions. Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Thank you for taking the time and the difficulty. I know it must be hard to have to express publicly some of the difficulties you're having.

I wanted to ask: your definition of Ontario that you mentioned a couple of times, I'm not quite sure where that's from. Where did you obtain that definition? Ms. Stevens: The definition of–being which? What do you mean, the definition? Mr. Chomiak: The several references made throughout in Ontario, catastrophic determination. Floor Comment: Yes, they have an actual– Mr. Chairperson: Mrs. Stevens–I'm sorry, I have to recognize the speaker before the microphone goes over to you. Proceed, please. Ms. Stevens: Okay. Ontario has a form that the doctors fill out. It's called an OCF-19, and they use that form.

They get the doctor, the treating physician, to complete it and they base a catastrophic determination on that form. Is that what you mean? Mr. Chomiak: Yeah, I think that captures what– because I was trying to determine where, because the insurance companies obviously, in Ontario, make the determination based on something, and your argument is that it's based on that form that's filled out by the treating physician.

So, what I intend to do is, I'm going to, later on in the evening when we have officials here from MPI, I will pose some of your points to MPI, and I just want to add a comment that is my own personal opinion in the area of both psychological damage and what in the case of brain injury would be called physiological damage.

I think that we're quite behind in recognizing symptoms, et cetera, as a society in whole, and obviously, as this–we can and should do better across the spectrum and that has been my experience in having been involved with that for a number of years, but I will pass on all of those comments that you have made to MPI when the officials are here tonight and when we go through the review of the bill. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Any comment, Ms. Stevens? Ms. Stevens: Thanks for having me. Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Thank you very much, Mrs. Stevens, for your presentation tonight.

I know it was very difficult for you and we really

210 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 28, 2009 appreciate the courage that it took for you to come and do this presentation, and the fact that you've lived through this whole situation makes it a lot more personal here when you are here instead of having it read into or sending a letter in. The interesting term that you used was the whole-person impairment, and it's obvious that the bill doesn't address that, and I take encouragement from what the minister said tonight that perhaps that there can be some amendmen ts brought forward that would possibly deal with this.

So, again, I thank you for being so courageous tonight. You did a wonderful job. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Any comment, Ms. Stevens? Ms. Stevens: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, I thank you for your presentation. I call Cherise Griffin, private citizen. Good evening, Ms. Griffin. Do you have any written copies of your presentation? Ms. Cherise Griffin (Private Citizen): Yes, I do. Mr. Chairperson: You do. Our assistants will distribute them. You may begin when you're ready. Ms. Griffin: Thank you for having me here tonight to speak.

My name is Cherise Griffin and I was involved in a car accident in October 2001. At the time of the accident I had an 18-month-old daughter and was six months pregnant. As a result of the accident, I became a high-level quadriplegic paralyzed from the chest down with limited use of my hands and arms. Amazingly, two months after the accident I gave birth to a healthy baby boy, and my daughter, who was also in the accident, was miraculously unhurt physically, but emotionally the trauma still lingers. I'm here today to address you all regarding Bill 36, The MPIC Amendment Act.

I've had time to review the bill in length. I would like to comment on additions to the act, as well as some omissions. Regarding the minimum income replacement, as well as the lump sum indemnity, I'd like to applaud the government for increasing these benefits, and I'm sure they will greatly benefit us victims of catastrophic injuries. Regarding the reimbursement with injury–sorry– reimbursement when injury is catastrophic, basically increasing the amount by $800 per month.

For myself this amount is sufficient but, realistically, this amount doesn't even touch the amount it would cost to care for a more severely disabled person like a ventilator-dependent quadriplegic or a person with severe head injury or even a person in a coma. To cover care for these individuals it costs a minimum of $17 an hour for a trained aide to take care of these people. All of these injuries require 24-hour care, and if you do the math that works out to be $11,400 per month to care for them and sustain life.

Presently, the cap is $4,085, and with the $800 increase there will still be a shortfall of $6,515. I feel that for these injuries there should be no cap, as it is life sustaining. Nor do I think that the remainder of this should fall back on the Manitoba taxpayer. MPI seems to be just passing the buck. Regarding the payment for certain expenses for catastrophic injured victims, this

section states that it's up to MPI's discretion to approve claims for certain expenses, basically meaning that MPI doesn't necessarily have to do anything. It's all words on a piece of paper, and really they–really, it means nothing. I feel this statement is too vague. This gives all the power to MPI and takes it away from the victim, the victim who really needs it. From past history, I know that what's best for the victim is not what's best for Manitoba Public Insurance.

In the end MPI has all the power, becaus e all they care about is the bottom line in saving money to give it back in big rebates at the end of the year. Leaving it up to MPI to decide who gets what is a very scary thing, and how does this benefit us, the victim? It doesn't. * (18:30) Regarding the lifetime maximum of $1 million, I have one question as to what expenses that includes. This may sound like a lot of money, but in medical terms it's nothing if it includes wheelchairs, shower chairs, special mattresses, medical supplies, vehicle conversions, the list goes on.

If you're injured when you're very young, say a child, a million dollars isn't gonna last 80 years. Again, it doesn't sound like it benefits us and that needs to be changed. Regarding both the facilitation of claims and the co-operation of other agencies and organizations, this means that MPI is, again, just passing the buck to the Manitoba taxpayer, and I don't feel that it is acceptable. Regarding the non-application of subsection 2 and the non-application of decisions under

section 137(1), as well as the non-appeal of decisions under subsection 31 found on page 7 of the amended agreement, these three sections regarding the victim's right–these sections regarding the victim's right to

September 28, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 211 appeal decisions made by MPI under 137, the first one, the non-application of subsection 2 states that MPI doesn't need to notify the victim in writing about decisions made under this

section which deals with these unnamed expenses that are by MPI's discretion. Under the next two sections the non-application of decisions as well as the no-appeal on the decisions, I feel that this is a loophole of

section 137 as it takes away the victim's right to appeal all decisions made by MPI. How does this benefit the victim? It doesn't. It only benefits MPI's bottom line. Basically, if I were to request something under this, MPI would say no, and I would have no other recourse. It is imperative that these three sections be deleted from the amendment act as it gives all the power to MPI and leaves the victims helpless. One huge omission in the amended act is with respect to child care for a severely disabled parent. In the news release of May 26th, Mr.

Chomiak states that these proposed enhancements would ensure that MPI continues to offer one of the most comprehensive auto injury compensation plans in Canada. For this to be truly one of the most comprehensive auto injury plans in Canada, it is imperative to include more funding for child-care expenses. Presently, as a severely disabled single mother of two children, I receive $266 bi-weekly to care full time for my children. This amount doesn't come close to what it realistically costs to help parent–to help parent for a catastrophically injured person.

As a result of being a single mom, I've had to hire a live- in caregiver to be my arms and my legs. If I don't have her I'd have to deal with the possibility of losing custody of my children all because it's not legislated by MPI. It is imperative to include these amendments regarding MPI's responsibility to assist in child care resulting in a mother's inability to care for the children because of an accident. Not only do you deal with mourning the loss of part of you and the life you knew, you also now have to deal with the possibility of losing your children. It's just not fair and not acceptable.

I call on all of you to put yourself into a catastrophically injured person's shoes. Think about you and your loved ones. You don't realize how it affects not only you, but your family and your loved ones. Another issue that I'd like included would be for family counselling. Presently, family counselling is not addressed in either of the acts. Like I said, catastrophic injuries don't only affect the victim, but also their families, and they need help coping, coping with the loss.

At present, my daughter, who was in the accident with me, who saw me ejected from the car, waited in fear for who knows how long until someone found us–was refused counselling by MPI, as they quoted, she wasn't physically hurt in the accident, and we don't cover emotional trauma. To me, this is disgusting and needs to be changed. As a catastrophically injured person who has had first-hand–who knows firs t-hand how MPI works, I plead with you to fully consider what I've said here today. Who knows, maybe you or one of your loved ones will be faced with the same nightmare I have.

This bill is supposed to benefit us, but in part–but in parts, it actually is taking away our rights, now even taking away our right to appeal MPI's decisions. So please reconsider passing this bill until some changes have been made. This bill will be life-altering for us, and you should pay careful attention to the decisions you make, because you never know when your life will change. Any of you could leave here tonight and end up in my position but, maybe then, you would now truly see how important the decisions you make really are. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Griffin.

Open the floor to questions. Mr. Graydon: Thank you, Ms. Griffin, for your–for your courage to come here tonight and explain the bill–or explain how the bill would affect you personally, and because of your personal experiences. When you say that MPI is passing the buck, can you maybe elaborate on that a little bit? Ms.

Griffin: In my past experience, regarding the child care, as an example, I was notified by Manitoba Public Insurance basically that my cheque didn't come in my bank account, that they were going to be taking away money that I had been using for child care, they were taking it away, so then I was left with no money to pay for my caregiver who basically does everything that I can't. She's basically my sidekick in parenting. And I wrote many letters to some of you; didn't get very far. It was about a year later that I finally, after pressing Child and Family

212 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 28, 2009 Services for help, that they finally agreed, begrudgingly, to help me. And I just feel that it shouldn't be the taxpayers of Manitoba's responsibility to take care of me. That's what we pay insurance for. That's what Manitoba Public Insurance is for, the way I see it, and it just shouldn't be the taxpayers, who don't necessarily have vehicles, that should be responsible for that. Mr. Graydon: Thank you for that answer, Ms. Griffin.

You've made mention in here about some of the things that you wonder whether the million dollars would cover, and one of them is the conversion of vehicles and, in your case, you have a conversion vehicle, I assume. And so, at present time, is there any problem with MPI getting a conversion vehicle? Ms. Griffin: No, I've never had problems with getting any of that. Basically, they have provisions that it's a certain amount of kilometres and five years that they will pay for a conversion of a van that I purchase. * (18:40) Mr. Chomiak: Again, thank you for coming and making the presentation.

I will also pass on to MPI some of the comments, th e issue of child care in particular, and the issue of counselling in terms of new concepts that have–may have been brought to my attention before, but I don't recall. Members of the committee will know I sometimes have trouble recalling what I said the day before, but that's my occupational hazard, but they are significant. I think that one of the problems, one of–when we passed the act unanimously in the Legislature, I think it was unanimous to go to a no-fault insurance system.

There was a recognition that the health-care system would pay for a cost, as it does for everyone, as would the child and family care system pay for everybody, and I think that's a philosophical–that's a point that you're disputing. I recognize that, and I think that's one of the matters that, I think, we'll have to probably agree to disagree on in terms of how one approaches. Thanks for acknowledging that we are increasing the cap and–but I also recognize the scenario that you laid out. You know, basically we consider that the health -care system, who covers everyone, plays a

part in it. But the final point that I wanted to make was I believe that the million dollars was provided for in this act to act as a provision for consequences actually, as you've raised that may have not been anticipated, or may have not been intended in terms of coverage that might arise.

So, if I recall correctly from the information that I was provided, and I–it may seem arbitrary, but I think the intention, in fact clearly the intention, was to provide a sum of money for perhaps unrecognized circumstances, and I–the only qualification I put on that is because–and it's somewhat similar to what I said to the previous speaker.

In the last 20 years or 30 years that I've been involved, there's been extraordinary changes in terms of health care and provisions in–that can be provided so that one can't, one can almost pray and hope that there'll be significant changes that will–that may allow for a repair, spinal repair, et cetera. But–so I–it's a long way of saying the intention was to make it a positive sum of money for unanticipated circumstances. Ms. Griffin: That sounds good. I'm just worried about the discretionary at MPI, which is a load of crap. An Honourable Member: One question, one very short question, because he's got– Mr.

Chairperson: Okay, we're at six minutes. Leave for one more brief question by Mr. Borotsik. Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon West): Very brief question. I know the minister was doing a great job of speaking in the time, but thank you, thank you, thank you for coming here and giving us your personal experience, and I know how difficult it was. I have one very quick question. You talked about payments for certain expenses, for catastrophic injured victims, and it says it's left up to MPI's discretion to approve the claims and certain expenses, and I appreciate the fact that it's their discretion.

Have you been refused any of those expenses, and is there any appeal process for you at that point in time, 'cause I find it very difficult to have somebody making a judgmental call and not having the ability to at least question that call or go to someone else. Have you had been refused any of those expenses? Ms. Griffin: Not the ones that I've mentioned, but I have been denied lots. An Honourable Member: Explain which ones. Ms. Griffin: Oh, where do I start? Now you've–

September 28, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 213 An Honourable Member: Your child's been, been– Ms. Griffin: Oh, my child, yeah–like say the child- care amount or counselling–and presently I would be, I would request it. I would be then given a determination letter, and I'd have 60 days to then appeal that, and then it would go to the Manitoba– like, MPI appeals. Once it's–if it's denied again, then I can take it to the AICAC, which is the automobile compensation injury protection something. Yeah, so there's the process. So at least if MPI says no, the next step is appealing to MPI, which is, you know.

And then you know–at least there's the– you have some hope that you can maybe get it, but with this, you–you don't have any hope 'cause MPI, they could just be a bad day, and that's–like past history, you could talk to one guy, adjuster, you made the same injury, and I could ask for something, and then Joe Blow, exactly the same, could ask for something. I'll get it; they won't. He had a fight with his wife that morning and he's kind of, you know, ticked, and he says no. And that's basically the way it is. And that is no joke.

And you have to be in the situation to believe the way it is because you're just giving it up to these people that are just in their desk and you're No. 15324, and they don't have to look at you or come and see your family or see anything that happens. So at least presently, you have an appeals process. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Bill 8–The Civil Service Superannuation Amendment Act (Enhanced Manitoba Hydro Employee Benefits and Other Amendments) Mr.

Chairperson: Okay, we're going to move to Bill 8, The Civil Service Superannuation Amendment Act (Enhanced Manitoba Hydro Employee Benefits and Other Amendments), and I've been rather lenient with time of late, but this last presentation was 20 minutes or more, so at this point I'm gonna warn presenters at nine minutes and I'm gonna call order at 10 minutes, and we'll take it from there, so. We're sticking with the out-of-town presenters. I call Pat Bowslaugh, private citizen. Ms. Bowslaugh, do you have written copies of your presentation? Ms. Pat Bowslaugh (Private Citizen): I do. Mr. Chairperson: I see you do.

Then staff will distribute them. You may begin. Ms. Bowslaugh: Learning curve. Mr. Chairperson: You have the floor, ma'am. The clock begins when you start speaking, so at your discretion. Ms. Bowslaugh: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good evening members of government and of the opposition. I am pleased to have this opportunity to be here with you tonight. My name is Pat Bowslaugh, and tonight I am presenting as a private citizen but, as some of you know, I was a teacher and a principal in the public school system for a period of over 39 years.

Please allow me to present just one poignant example of scenes from my past, and I need a little prop. Teacher, teacher, that's not fair. Jason said he can make up new rules for our game, and I don't like new rules. How come he thinks he can change the rules? You said that we must play by the rules. Johnnie, you are right. As a class, we went over the rules, and we all agreed that those would be the rules we would use on the playground. Not everyone liked the rules at the time, but those were the rules that we have to live with.

But sometimes people think they can change the rules without including everyone in the plan. You are right; it is not fair. * (18:50) So why do I bring this example tonight? The answer is simple. Bill 8 is in reference to the Civil Service Superann uation Fund. I understand, from going through the bill off the Internet, that part of the bill addresses the plan of transferring $145 million from the reserve account into the COLA account.

And, further, I have some information that I guess it might be rumour because I didn't find it exactly printed in here, but I have it on fair authority that the bill plans to guarantee a two-thirds COLA, with the potential of up to full COLA based on CPI, if funds are available. How strange it is that I stood here just one year ago, representing over 7,000 retired persons from a different plan, asking for fair and equitable attention, according to The Teachers' Pensions Act. I ask you what justifies the difference between the civil servants' plan and the TR AF plan?

Technically, are we not all under the mandate of the government of the day?

214 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 28, 2009 As a representative at the Teachers' Pension Task Force, the information that I heard indicated that no transfer would ever be made from account A of the TRAF plan in order to support the pension adjustment account. Here we are, exactly one year later, and the very government which implemented a limping, inadequate-to-somewhat-disgraceful plan for retired teachers, appears to be providing, in comparison, a Cadillac plan for our civil service colleagues. Transfer? Guaranteed two-thirds? Possible 100 percent COLA? Unbelievable.

I urge the government, sincerely, I urge the government to pass this bill. At least it will be a great move towards supporting retirees in the civil servants' retirement plan. I am very pleased that the government is at least look ing after the needs of one segment of our retired citizens. Please remember the logic, that using surplus was created through the long-standing contributions of employees whose monies contributed to the surplus, and that is fair. The monies in pension accounts are not there solely on the backs of current employees.

But I also urge you to reflect on the TRAF plan, in which this year retirees received a COLA increase of not 66 and two-thirds, not a 100 percent, but a pathetic 37 percent. Wow. Did you know that 37 percent COLA equates to an average COLA for over 11,500 retirees this year, amounting to $6.78 a month? Average, remember the word average, it means that there were many hundreds that received $2 or less. So I ask you, what would you do personally with an extra $2 for the whole month? So, back to the schoolyard. Johnny was concerned about the changing of the rules. Johnny had a valid concern.

There is a process when the rules are changed. Will you include the members of the Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba in the process of changing the rules? That would be the right and honourable thing to do. That would be fair. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Bowslaugh. Open the floor to questions, comments. Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon West): Thank you, Ms. Bowslaugh, once again, for making your presentation. I did, at the last part of this, and I believe it was sincere, where you suggested that this bill pass.

I would take it from that comment that you're not wishing to do harm to other retirees, but just simply, from your own organization and your own individuals, would like to be treated fair. Is that–is that a fair comment? That you're not, as I say, suggesting that others be treated unfairly; you'd just like to be treated fairly. Is that correct? Ms. Bowslaugh: Thank you, Mr. Borotsik. Yes, that is entirely correct.

I think that when the government of the day has the foresight to put a bill such as this on the floor, that it is a landmark move, and just because TRAF, at the current moment, doesn't have it, we wouldn't want to deprive any other group of not having it either. I think that that would be unfair of us. It would be selfish and unkind and mean-spirited. And I don't think that we want to be, as an organization, seen to be any one of those descriptors that I just used. Mr. Borotsik: Yeah, and I can't recall, but I'm sure you'll remind me.

Did TRAF wish to transfer funds from their plan A account or their basic pension fund into the COLA account? Did you wish to move some of those funds over to the COLA account so that the COLA account could have a larger fund to draw on the COLA on an annual basis? Did you ask for that? Ms. Bowslaugh: In response: actually, as you know, the markets have dropped. But prior to the markets dropping, we have, in the TRAF reports over the years, been told when there is a surplus.

However, you'll remember that the Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba do not have an official voice in the TRAF plan and, therefore, we were not able to negotiate and point out that the monies in the TRAF plan account A were put there in the amount that we were told to pay at the time and that the monies there, over the many years–and, like, I'm an example, I was–you know, I contributed over 39 years.

And you know the formula that how often money doubles when it's invested from an early age, I was 18 when I started making contributions, and that that surplus, when there was surpluses, was evolved on the backs of those of us who had put in over those long periods of time. At the Pension Task Force in the course of the dialogue–and you have to bear in mind that some of us here were invited to sit on the Pension Task Force, but not allowed to speak, until honourable Minister Bjornson changed that, for which we were very grateful.

And Minister Bjornson said that we, the RTAM members, could have two representatives, we could speak and we could disagree with the rest

September 28, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 215 without admonishment, and that was a gigantic step forward. But, at the time, when we asked for a consideration for transfer, we're not the power bodies at the Pension Task Force, and we were flatly refused. In fact, the word , if I recall correctly from the speaker was, I will never agree for any transfer from account A. Never. Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, I thank you for your presentation, ma'am. Ms. Bowslaugh: Thank you, I appreciate this opportunity.

Bill 35–The Municipal Conflict of Interest and Campaign Financing Act (Various Acts Amended) Mr. Chairperson: Continuing with the out-of-town presenters, we'll now move to Bill 35, The Municipal Conflict of Interest and Campaign Financing Act, various acts amendment. I call Mr. Errol Black, private citizen. Mr. Drew Caldwell (Brandon East): I do have the presentation by Mr. Black. He was unable to be here this evening because of a personal matter in Brandon.

But I do have, in fact, his submission for Bill 35 in which he has asked me to submit this presentation to the committee for inclusion in its entirety in Hansard. And I would request that that in fact occur. Mr. Chairperson: Is what Mr. Caldwell proposed agreeable? [Agreed] Mr. Caldwell: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will submit this to the Clerk for inclusion in Hansard. * (19:00) Mr. Chairperson: Okay, the written presentation will be included in Hansard. We'll move on to Darlene Dziewit, Manitoba Federation of Labour. Darlene Dziewit? Okay, Darlene Dziewit's name will be dropped to the bottom of the list.

Call Mr. Ross Martin, private citizen. Good evening, Mr. Martin. Do you have any written materials for the committee? Mr. Ross Martin (Private Citizen): No, Mr. Chair, I do not have a written submission. It'll be verbal. It'd take me quite a while to write out anything right now. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, sir, you may proceed. Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I notice that we have a previous mayor that I served under, Mr. Borotsik , and a fellow councillor, Mr. Caldwell.

So it's like going to a council meeting of days of old, but at least they’ll be able to verify some of what I will briefly talk upon. An Honourable Member: You're not going to ask for his resignation, are you? An Honourable Member: That was my line. Leave it alone. Mr. Martin: Well, that's a good start. Mr. Chairperson: Order. Please proceed. Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I served 18 years on the Brandon City Council as councillor for Riverview ward, and many of those years were served with Mr. Borotsik as the mayor, and Mr. Caldwell was, of course, a fellow councillor.

Of course, going through that, there were six elections that I had to go through, and one of the things that this bill I think does address is that it does level the playing field, because even though the elections, many of them weren't very expensive to actually carry, there was an expense there and a lot of it depended on how deep your pockets were, and a lot also depended on how deep the pockets of your friends were.

And, unfortunately, being from the working area, my pockets weren't very deep and neither were my friends pockets very deep, and there was that imbalance, and I think that that is being addressed in this bill. In fa ct, I'm surprised that this bill hasn't been brought forward much, much earlier. I fully support this–that this bill–that it levels out the playing field in that it makes it much more difficult to buy an election in the municipal government, and I don't say that with any malice against anyone.

But, it–the perception is always there, that if you have the money, then you can buy a seat, and that hasn't always been true, but the perception's certainly there, and I think that this would keep everything above board such that even the perception would no longer be valid. The donations, I believe, are quite reasonable, where you can make a contribution to the candidate of your choice up to a certain limit, and I think those

216 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 28, 2009 limits are very reasonable for municipal government. I think that they'll go a long ways–as I said previously–to levelling out the field. The–a lot of the–a lot of issues regarding–as I've previously mentioned–the personal fundraising is, some people have very deep pockets and they could do it on their own, or they could shuffle money through the family and do it that way, and I also noticed that this also addresses that issue of the financing.

The one–the other point is, of course, the conflict of interest and the codes of conduct, and we, of course, had to declare what our assets were and what we had investments in, and I always thought they were public and I was surprised that they weren't, and I'm very pleased that they are going to be public. It's not that I think anything–anyone has anything to hide. It's just the perception that they may have something to hide.

Most people that I've seen on the–on councils, on the municipal councils, I can't believe that anybody would have a problem with this because they were probably the most honest people you could meet, and most of the people I have met on council were certainly, certainly not in it for any personal gain, but as a dedication to their, to their area. And I think this just takes off one more layer of perception that they may have some interests in something else.

This would clear it up, and certainly make it a lot better for everyone, because, as you may well be aware, the perceived conflict of interest can sometimes be worse than what a conflict may even be. So it's excellent that these are being brought forward in this bill. The transparency will make it, will make it better, I think, for all municipal councillors and make it much better for the governance of the municipalities. The only–the only concern I did have, and I don't know how you can address that, but the–if you make a donation, can any part of it be tax deductible?

So, if you're donating, as you do, you know, perhaps to a provincial party or a federal party, is any of this, could it be, tax deductible, and that's the only item I saw that might be of some concern. It might be something that you wish to–wish to actually look at. And, having said that, I thank you very much for allowing me to make a brief presentation to this august committee. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Martin, for your presentation. Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon West): Thank you, Mr. Martin, for making that wonderful presentation.

I echo councillor–Councillor Caldwell–the member from Brandon East, in his comments that the last time that I saw you at a podium, you did ask for my resignation then. You asked for my resignation about a hundred times, if I recall correctly, and I'm disappointed that you didn't do it this time, just for old times' sake. Mr. Martin, I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions as we go back an awful long way. You did indicate that you were a councillor for a number of terms. How many elections did you win? Mr. Martin: Six. Mr.

Borotsik: And do you believe that the lack of funding regulations, or funding rules, caused you any great discomfort or any difficulty in winning any of those six elections? Mr. Martin: Yes, I believe it did in one instance where it was–it almost came down to a battle of who had the bigger pocket, and–and would it help if I asked for your resignation right now? Mr. Borotsik: No, it wouldn't, Mr. Martin. You don't have any tonight, and you didn't have any influence at that time. You certainly don't have any now.

The conflict of interest–the conflict of interest, as you're well aware, the City of Brandon had a fairly restrictive by-law. It was a conflict of interest by-law and you, along with others, had to file a statement of assets and that was kept and it certainly served the purposes and served the purposes very well, not only from, not only from councillors, but from employees.

Do you not see that that in itself would be sufficient from a conflict of interest standpoint, whereby the municipality, the City or, for this matter, any of the municipalities would be responsible for the maintaining of their conflict of interest legislations and by-laws and enforce those conflict of interest legislation and by-laws? Mr. Martin: My preference, Mr. Borotsik, is to have it uniform province-wide. I see no problem with what is presented in the bill. If it's good enough for the Legislature, I think it should be good enough for the municipal sector. * (19:10) Just having the uniformity is one item.

The other is, I don't believe any municipal councillor has

September 28, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 217 anything to hide, and they shouldn't be afraid of having open and transparent conflict of interest guidelines. So I see nothing wrong with putting this in, and I see it as being no obstacle to anyone running. As I mentioned prior, that people are there to serve the community, and my experience has been that these people are there to serve the community, and this will not stop them from doing so.

It would also have the transparency so people will know right up front whether or not they have a conflict and they will know enough to excuse themselves if there is any conflict. So, no, I don't have any problem with this. Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Inter- governmental Affairs): I'd just like to take the opportunity, Mr. Martin, to thank you for making the presentation. It's well thought out, and you raised some very, very good points.

So, once again, just thank you very much for taking the time to come out tonight, much appreciated, and at this time I would just like to thank Errol Black as well for submitting his views with regard to this piece of legislation. Mr. Chairperson: Any comments, sir? Mr. Martin: No. Mr. Chairperson: No. I'll go to Mr. Caldwell. Mr. Caldwell: I just want to echo what the minister said, Ross, in Brandon–and Errol and yourself has been very–folks in my constituents have been very vocal about this over the years, as a matter of fact.

So it's nice to see you presenting on your experience in Brandon, because it has the same degree of relevance in that community as it does in every other community around Manitoba in terms of enhancing democracy in this province. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Any final comments, sir? Mr. Martin: No, thank you very much for your time. I do appreciate it. Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, sir, I thank you for your presentation. Mr. Doug Dobrowolski, Association of Manitoba Municipalities. Good evening, sir, do you have any written materials for the committee? Mr.

Doug Dobrowolski (A ssociation of Manitoba Municipalities): Yes, I do. Mr. Chairperson: The clerk will distribute them. You may begin. Mr. Dobrowolski: The Association of Manitoba Municipalities, as the umbrella group for all 198 incorporated municipalities in the province of Manitoba, would like to take this opportunity to put our views forward on Bill 35, The Municipal Conflict of Interest and Campaign Financing Act, on the record. Let me start by saying our association and our membership fully supports making all orders of government more open and transparent.

As the order of government closest to the people, we fully understand the need for citizens to know what their elected representatives are doing. We see these people in the coffee shop, the grocery store and the local restaurant. Everywhere we go we are asked, what is council doing? And if a citizen doesn't see their elected official directly, council minutes and decisions are easily accessible on the municipal Web sites. In a lot of ways municipal government is an open book. However, we also understand that there is a need always for room for an improvement.

The AMM has been advocating for greater independence of municipal government including much needed new sources of funding and we understand that greater transparency comes along with this. As a result the AMM can support many of the new directions set out in Bill 35, however, there are some areas we have concern. One of these concerns is the requirement in Bill 35 that, after November 2009, all financial disclosure statements filed must be made public.

There is no doubt a councillor should be basing decisions on the best–what is best for the community and not for their own self-interest, and we fully support the right of any residents in a municipality to question whether it is, indeed, taking place. Currently, any resident has the right to ask the chief administrative officer whether an elected official is in conflict when making a decision. The CAO reviews the financial disc losure statement to see whether the elected official has declared an interest that would place him in conflict.

The AMM is unaware of any situation where a resident was not given the right to question whether an elected official was in conflict, or any case where a CAO did not provide truthful information. We are, therefore, unsure why the current system is being changed in this bill. Therefore, the AMM suggests removing this provision in Bill 35 changing how financial disclosure statements are made public, and we believe the current system is working and

218 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 28, 2009 provides citizens with open ness and transparency in a municipal decision-making process. We are equally concerned with the changing the rules in the middle of the current mandate. Sitting elected municipal officials put their name in for consideration based on a clear set of rules and requirements. Everyone elected gave considerable consideration to the expectations and requirements. We understand the assumption that by entering public office your life becomes more public.

However, there was never a commitment to have your financial disclosure information available to anyone to review at any time. It is unjust to change the rules on this important issue in the middle of a mandate. Therefore, the AMM is strongly opposed to the changing of the financial disclosure rules in the middle of the current municipal mandate. Another issue of concern for our association is the penalties for not filing an election finance statement within the allotted 270 days. We believe it is fair that an elected official should lose their seat if they fail to comply with the rules set out.

While this is a harsh penalty, no doubt, it is important to ensure transparency in governme nt. We are concerned, however, that the penalty for those candidates who are unsuccessful is not strict enough. The bill currently disqualifies these candidates from being nominated for or elected as a member of council until the next general election. At most, these candidates would have to sit out one election cycle and would be eligible to run in any by-election following the next general election.

Therefore, the AMM would like to support stronger penalties for unsuccessful candidates that fail to file election finance statements within the allotted time. The final concern for the AMM is the requirement for the CAO to re port any failure to file an election finance statement to the head of council. As currently constitutes, this places the CAO in a difficult position, that is entirely possible that the head of council could be the one who failed to file their statement.

The AMM would therefore ask that Bill 35 be amended to require that the CAO to report in writing a failure-to-file–an election finance statement to the entire council rather than just the head of council. Another important issue that needs to be considered is the impacts these stricter rules will have on attracting candidates to run in municipal elections. We have often heard from our members that it is difficult to get people willing to serve on municipal councils. It is certainly a thankless job, at times, with little compensation and long hours.

It is critically important that we look at ways to make participation on municipal council more palatable, rather than more onerous. Communication will also be critical in ensuring everyone knows and follows the new rules. We believe a comprehensive public education campaign must be undertaken to let everyone know about the new rules. The AMM can certainly play a role in letting the current elected officials know about the new requirements, and we'll be making time available at our upcoming convention to update our members.

However, it is equally important that citizens outside the current process, but interested in running in municipal council for the first time or perhaps, in some cases for the second or third time, are aware of the new rules. Municipal offices can help disseminate information once people register as a candidate, but people know–need to know, sorry–but people need to know they must come forward to register first. It is also critical that all the rules in place for election expenses are clear.

Issues like what should be considered as mileage, what do you claim for meal expenses and should you be–should you, sorry–and who should you–should be considered a volunteer all need to be made clear to candidates. We are happy to work with the department to prepare this material and make sure it is clear. It is important to remember that municipal candidates do not have official agents or political parties to turn to for support. Often, these are local people who have limited exposure to public life but are willing to step up and play a greater role in their community.

It is essential that they have all the support necessary to meet the requirements of the new legislation. As I stated earlier, AMM fully supports making all orders of government more open and transparent. Citizens today expect the democratic process to be open and accessible. Municipalities have responded to these expectations, as nearly everything done is either available on-line or at the municipal office. However, we can certainly understand the desire to move further in this direction, and the AMM can certainly support many of the amendments proposed in Bill 35.

However, it is critical that we do not go so far that it becomes too onerous to run for council or to serve in your community.

September 28, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 219 I would like to thank the committee for allowing the association to prevent this–to present this view on this important legislation. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation sir. Questions, comments from the committee? * (19:20) Mr. Lemieux: I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for presenting this evening. And I know that we've worked on many, many other issues very closely and we very much respect not only your office but that of AMM.

And I know that you've given this careful thought and we thank you for your comments with regard to a number of the issues related, as well, to this bill, and we are always open to taking a look how to enhance or improve legislation, but this evening we'll not be making any amendments, but we'll certainly look at that going forward. Mr. Dobrowolski: Thank you. Mr. Borotsik: Once again, yes, thank you for AMM always representing the municipalities as well as they do.

I would assume that some of this legislation has been proposed for some of the larger urban centres as opposed to some of the smaller rural centres, and I do know you represent all of the 198 municipalities. I know you've got some personal experience in a smaller constituency or smaller municipality. Having full public disclosure, you had said that it may dissuade some people from running in municipal elections.

In some of the smaller R.M.s where you have six councillors, a lot of them businessmen, a lot of them farmers, a lot of them having some fairly serious assets, do you feel that that, in fact, would have some of those people rethink their either rerunn ing for council or running in the first place, having a small community know and have your assets disclosed to that community? Floor Comment: Yes, it's– Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Dobrowolski. Mr. Dobrowolski: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I think what we've heard is that it will detract people from running and people from rerunning.

You know, and I think the issue is that somebody from the community now can just come in and want to look at their financial asset sheet for no apparent reason, where now, under the current rules, if people believe you have a conflict, you can go ask the CAO and he or she says yes or no. So I think it's the fact that people can just come in and ask to see your asset sheet. I think that's what's going to deter people from running. Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Thanks for your presentation tonight, Mr. Dobrowolski. I actually took offence to Mr.

Borotsik's comment about businessmen and farmers, as if the farmers aren't exactly businessmen. But, Mr. Dobrowolski, as we in the Legislature have a conflict of interest officer, would something like that be advisable rather than what's being proposed? Mr. Dobrowolski: Well, you know, we haven't heard a lot of negativity on that, but, I mean, again, you're making a simple process a little more onerous. It works very well as is, and we think it's a good system the way it works, and we'd like to stay, see it that way. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Seeing no further questions, sir, I thank you for your presentation.

That concludes our out-of-town presenters. Bill 8–The Civil Service Superannuation Amendment Act (Enhanced Manitoba Hydro Employee Benefits and Other Amendments) Mr. Chairperson: W e w i l l n o w g o b a c k t o B i l l 8 , The Civil Service Superannuation Amendment Act (Enhanced Manitoba Hydro Employee Benefits and Other Amendments), and I call Mr. Richard Benoit, Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba. Mr. Richard Benoit (Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba): Mr. Benoit, I see you have some written materials for us. Mr. Benoit: Yes, I do. Mr. Chairperson: Our clerk will distribute them. You may begin.

Mr. Benoit: Honourable members of this legislative committee hearing, I am proud to be the president of the Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba, RTAM, which consists of 7,613 retired teachers, and our association thanks you for the opportunity of presenting our opinions regarding the proposed changes to the civil servants superannuation act, CSSA. Firstly, we concur with the thrust of this new legislation which would help ensure a better COLA for the civil servants of our province who have worked and work very hard to improve the life and quality of all Manitobans within the parameters of

220 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 28, 2009 the legislation and policies of our province. However, we are deeply disappointed with the injustice and iniquity this proposed legislation presents in regards to the treatment allotted to retired teachers of Manitoba that was contained in the infamous Bill 45 passed last fall, approximately one year and 10 days ago by this same Legislature and whose provisions are now part of the retired teachers' pension act.

This act did not allow any transfers from the main account of the teachers pension plan to account A which handles the COLA fund in order to preserve the integrity of the basic plan. The injustice: one bill in 2009 proposes th e transfer of funds; the other one in 2008 did not. Bill 8 proposes to transfer $145 million that existed in a surplus fund as of December 31st, 2007, to be transferred to the superannuation adjustment account. This amount shall then be used for future indexing during the next 30 years as determined by the CSSA board on a recommendation of its actuary.

This $145-million surplus fund consisted of monies set aside for a number of years as surplus reported in annual reports separately, and was maintained as surplus for some years. Bill 8 is now taking that money and transferring it to the cost–to their cost-of-living account, superannuation adjustment account, which is the equivalence of our COLA account, the pension adjustment account, PAA. Years ago when these surplus funds were set aside, the CSSA did have a surplus. Now the CSSA is no longer in a surplus position, a plight similar to most pension funds, including ours.

With this transfer of funds in Bill 8, the government is taking a strong stand on COLA for future and retired se rvants. In comes the comparability issue between the CSSA and the TPA, which were presented to and passed by this Legislature–by the Legislature–as sister acts formulated and written at the same time and passed at the same time. Naturally, they evolved over time and went into different directions, but the foundations were identical.

Then, in 2008, Bill 45 was presented to the Legislature, and we were told that the government wanted the TPA to be consistent with the CSSA in regards to COLA being capped at two-thirds, and this bill did put a two-thirds cap on COLA for teachers. In reality, however, the CSSA does reduce COLA to two-thirds–while it does reduce COLA to two-thirds, there are provisions for going above the prescribed two-thirds. Thus , at present, the CSSA does allow to surpass the two-thirds COLA, but not the revised TPA. Once again, we must ask: Is this fair? Is it comparable? Once again, our answer is no.

Then Bill 8 proposes to transfer $145 million from its surplus account to its COLA account, civil servants superannuation adjustment account. There were no–there was no transfer of money in regards to retired teachers. Once again, why is–why is there this obvious inequity? With retired civil servants, we transfer. With retired teachers, we do not. The same question returns repeatedly: why the differentiation in treatment between two similar groups whose pensions are about affected by the same government?

Time today does not allow us to conjecture as to the reasons, but we are perplexed and disappointed by the lack of comparability between two similar groups treated very differently just one year apart. The Civil Service Superannuation Board is to be commended for paying particular attention to the financial hardships of reti rees when faced with the impact of reduced retirement purchase dollars. Legislators, RTAM is proud of the fact that you are acting, attempting to enhance the plight of civil service retirees by transferring $145 million for their COLA, and for this we commend the government.

However, one year after the passage of Bill 45 and the denial of equal treatment for teachers, leave us struck with a dim reality for the future, one which seems to become darker yet as we live and come to understand still more the reality of our plight created by Bill 45. Are comparability and equity no longer part of this Province's vocabulary and actions? Have teacher contributions to society during the depression, the war years, as well as the better years have been forgotten?

Have we not contributed to the enhancement of this province as well as civil servants? * (19:30) The answers that can be gleaned from this proposed bill are that we are not as important or not important enough to be treated equally with similar groups. Thus, RTAM is forced to ask, as Robert Frost suggests, why different roads were taken for civil servants and for us . However, RTAM also wishes to remind the government, as Robert Frost did to himself that cold, snowy winter evening when he gives his harness bells a shake, that we and the government have miles to go before we sleep and we

September 28, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 221 shall not sleep until equity is attained. Respectfully submitted. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Benoit. Comments, questions from the committee. Oh, one second, Mr. Schuler. Mr. Benoit? Mr. Benoit: Mr. Chairperson, I just wanted to say that the hearings were held for this bill on the date I said. No, not the hearings; it was passed on that date. That's fine. I thought I had to correct myself but I do not. Fine. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, thank you, sir. Mr.

Ron Schuler (Springfield): Thank you very much and I, of course, will choose my words very carefully, that I speak proper English, seeing as two of my former teachers are in the gallery and are going to be presenting shortly. Thank you very much for coming forward and I know that this is an issue that is very painful to you as an organization. I was there during those bitter, hot summer days. That would obviously be a summer ago; it couldn't have been this last one. And many teachers came forward–some ill of health–and were forced to walk to their vehicles late at night.

It really was an ugly time for our province. I think it's a low point, and we certainly do appreciate the fact that you're out here again and raising this very important public concern and doing it with amazing credibility. It's not that you’re trying to say, you know, if not us, then not them. What you're actually saying is yes to them and then also yes to us. Did you not just have a luncheon–and I apologize, it was a reception for the honourable Ed Schreyer, and again, I apologize; I couldn't be there. Could you tell us what his position was on the pensions for retired teachers? Mr.

Benoit: We were fortunate in having the Honourable Peter Bjornson attending and we thank him. So, if ever I say something wrong, Minister Bjornson, you can correct me yourself. The Honourable Ed Schreyer did touch on the concept, on the philosophy of social democracy, and on many points of the necessity to help citizens while the government is able to help them. To say that he directly addressed this pension issue, I cannot say that I specifically recall. Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, Mr. Benoit, I thank you for your presentation. Call Ms. Anne Monk, private citizen. Ms.

Monk, I see you have some written materials for us. You may begin when you're ready. You have the floor, ma'am. Ms. Anne Monk (Private Citizen): Okay, thank you. Madam Chairperson–or Mr. Chairperson, honourable minister, committee members, I appreciate the opportunity to present my views related to Bill 8. I am a retired teacher and member of the teachers' pension plan. I also note that I am a director of the Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba board and currently serve as pension committee chairperson and have also served as the RTAM representative on the teachers' pension task force.

Formerly, for 10 ye ars, from 1987 to 1997, I served on the TRAF board holding positions as vice- chairperson, investment committee member and, for a period, as acting chairperson of the board and the investment committee. I am presenting this evening as a result of one of the proposed amendments in Bill 8. I am not speaking in support of or in opposition to Bill 8, but I am gratified to see that it is proposed to give a sister plan COLA funding support. I wish to comment from my perspective on how Bill 8 relates to retired teachers and the COLA problem in the teachers' pension plan.

The proposed amendment to which I refer is additional funding of adjustment account. It allows for a lump sum of $145 million to be transferred from the basic benefit account, the account whic h finances the basic benefit, to the superannuation adjustment account, the account which finances COLA, to be used for future indexing for the next 30 years in a manner to be determined by the board. The amount from the 2004 basic benefit surplus has been earmarked as a reserve for future indexing benefits, subject to legislative approval since 2005. Why is Bill 8 important to retired teachers?

Despite similar long-standing problems and actuarial warnings, in similar conditions in the civil servants' and the teachers' pension plans, Bill 8 results in retired teachers being treated differently than the civil servants. For Bill 45, which contained amendments to some of TRAF's COLA arrangements and was passed last fall, the government argued comparability in COLA amounts when it enacted a maximum two- thirds of CPI COLA for teachers.

222 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 28, 2009 Yet there is departure on the government's

part in the notion of comparability for COLA funding in Bill 8. Why the different treatment? In asking this question, I have four points to make. One: a transfer of basic benefit surplus has been agreed to at the civil service to enhance the funding of COLA, while retired teachers to date have been denied a transfer of basic benefit surplus to improve funding of the COLA account. The Sale report arising out of the last round of the negotiations at the Teachers' Pension Task Force made no recommendation regarding use of the basic benefit account or surplus for a means of enhancing the funding of teachers' COLAs.

Its funding recommendations were minimalist. Mr. Vice-Chairperson in the Chair RTAM has had a long-standing position that an option for solution to the teachers' COLA problem is a lump sum transfer from the basic benefit account, or surplus to the COLA account. That is a transfer from account A to the pension adjustment account or PAA.

At these pension task force meetings, even our request by RTAM to have actuarial modelling of the impact of $100-million transfer from the basic benefits account to the COLA account was refused despite the fact there was an actuarial surplus for service accrued, as indicated in the actuarial valuation as at January 1st, 2006. Why the different treatment?

Two: a transfer of basic benefit surplus in the civil service fund is proposed despite the existence of a current service contribution shortfall, meaning active civil servants are not contributing sufficiently to fund their future benefit promise despite the need for a contribution increase and despite a deficit. These same conditions exis t at TRAF and have been stated by both the Manitoba Teachers' Society and the government as reasons for not using the basic benefits account in surplus to enhance funding of the teachers' COLA account. In this regard, I would note two further telling points.

First, TRAF is making use of surplus to subsidize the contribution shortfall of new active teachers. Second, retired teachers, for years, have subsidized the basic benefit account because retired teachers were denied the benefit of higher equity returns earned on the PAA assets, as the PAA formerly was credited only with fixed-income returns. Civil servants have had the benefit of the crediting of total fund returns to their COLA account for a number of years.

Why is the government supporting use of the basic benefit account for COLA funding at the civil service fund when it won't for TRAF, despite similar conditions? Why is the government treating retired civil servants as equals with active civil servant workers, but won't treat retired teachers as equals with active working teachers? Why the different treatment? * (19:40) Three: the actuarial me thodology in the civil service fund seems to be a methodology that enables enhancing the funding of COLA. The actuarial value of the assets has been adjusted to reflect the 2004 basic benefit surplus of $145 million.

This amount was earmarked without inte rest as a reserve for future indexing benefits. It was first noted in the notes to the consolidated financial statements in the 2005 CSSB annual report and has continued to be reported in each consecutive year. Four: there seems to be a different approach and attitude regarding COLA funding for civil servants. At the civil service plan, the unions and employers have agreed to use surplus to enhance funding of the COLA account.

Actuarial warnings regarding the status of the COLA accoun t were provided to the parties responsible for negotiating changes, the employee liaison committee and the employer advisory committee, and they agreed to the transfer of surplus. In contrast , the Manitoba Teachers' Society and the government have refused such an approach at the Teachers' Pension Task Force. MTS and the government have taken the position that full funding of the basic benefits should have priority. RTAM interprets this position as meaning no use of the basic benefit and surplus for enhanced funding of the COLA account.

Government appears to be looking after its employees, while its approach to teachers has been minimalist. Why the different treatment? The respective unions appear to have a different approach. Ms. Isaak, MTS president, made the MTS position clear in Pension Task Force negotiations and crystal clear in her presentation at the Bill 45 hearings. Quote: The surplus in account A should remain in account A. To rob the basic benefit to pay

September 28, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 223 COLA is wrong on every conceivable level, and it is something the society will never agree to. End of quote. The civil service unions have apparently not taken this approach to use–toward the use of surplus for enhancing COLA funding. They appear to be looking after the interests of retired civil servants and have been able to obtain for civil servants what MTS has been unwilling to negotiate for retired teachers. MTS appears to be serving the interests of the active teachers, its dues paying members.

Retired teachers would have been better off having MGEU representing their interests. In conclusion, the government has argued comparability in COLA amounts and enacted this via Bill 45, yet no comparability in COLA funding is inherent in Bill 8. This appears to me to be political hypocrisy. Retired teachers continue to be failed by the system. We have paid for inflation protection, in fact, 60 percent more than civil servants. What has the Bill 45 funding solution for retired teachers produced? A 60.4 percent of CPI COLA in the first year and a 30.8 percent of CPI COLA in the second year.

The Sale report prognostication of achieving two-thirds COLA in the first three years has not been achieved. In contrast, retired civil servants have received a two-thirds of CPI COLA in 2008, and a 64.2 percent of CPI COLA in 2009. The treatment of retired teachers remains unfair and inequitable. More significant COLA funding is still needed for retired teachers. Thank you. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Monk, for your presentation. Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much, Ms. Monk, for waiting all this time to have your opportunity to speak to this bill. We certainly appreciate your presentation.

It's very factual. It's all there. It's all- inclusive. I don't think there's even any questions to ask. I'd just like to say thank you very much and thank you for all your contributions over the years. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Ms. Monk? Any other questions from committee members? Seeing none, thank you very much, Ms. Monk, for your presentation. I'd like to–committee would call Dick Marshall. [interjection] Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry–Peggy Pendergast. Peggy Prendergast. Ms. Prendergast, do you have written material for the committee? Ms. Peggy Prendergast (Private Citizen): Yes. They're going to hand it out. Mr.

Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Prendergast. And the Clerk's staff will pass the written material. You might begin your remarks at your will. Ms. Prendergast: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I don't think I need to introduce myself. I've been coming for many years and I would just–this is going to be a very brief presentation this evening. I would like to make it clear right from the beginning that I am in support of Bill 8. I believe it is not only reasonable and fair for MGEU retirees; it is also, in my opinion, very appropriate considering the economic times we are experiencing.

It appears to me, afte r hearing some of the statistics quoted at the salute-to-Ed-Schreyer evening last week, that we are in times similar, if not worse, than the mid-1970s. When inflation hit after a very deep recession at that time, the buying power of the dollar fell by 10 cents a year for a straight five years and beyond. What a disaster that would be for my pension. The NDP party at the time realized what a disaster it was for retired teachers of the time. Cost- of-living allowance was instituted through the establishment of the pension adjustment account. Indexing for teachers' pensions was established.

The intergenerational nature of the legislation worked for many years. Today it does not work. There is not enough money generated. It is especially difficult for those teachers 80 and over. More than 10 percent of retired teachers fall into this age bracket. There is no way they can supplement their pensions, other than something being done with their COLA. Is it fair to ask them to return to the wo rk force? A majority of these teachers are women whose salaries, when they retired, were much smaller than the retiring teacher today, and who now are living below the poverty line.

Not only are many of them invisible, they are not on boards and committees. Many of them believe their former advocate, the Manitoba Teachers' Society, and the government, especially the NDP, will do the right thing for them. Haven't they always in the past?

224 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 28, 2009 Many of those–of these teachers have been the backbone of volunteerism in the province for decades. Their communities and schools have benefited from hours of time donated to help children, neighbourhoods, churches and other not-for-profit organizations. Now they need help or at least a sense of fairness and hope from their government. The Manitoba Teachers' Society has stated unequivocally that no monies from account A of the teachers' pension fund may be transferred to the pension adjustment account to support an increase in the COLA for retired teachers.

MGEU has seen fit to su pport their retirees by introducing Bill 8. In my mind, it would be reasonable and fair to provide the same type of legislation for the teachers' pension fund, the other legislated pension for civil servants in the province, especially in these trying and unsure times for the older pensioner. I support Bill 8. I support a reasonable and fair pension for retired teachers in our province. And I'd like to direct your attention to the sheet that I added, which gives you some figures.

It's quite obvious from the numbers of women and men 80 and beyond, the gender difference, and it's quite obvious the difference in the salaries or pensions, in other words, that these people receive. I guess the bottom paragraph of the sheet that I've given you says that Statistics Canada's low-income cutoff, in 2008, for a city the size of Winnipeg, is $21,300.

The low- income cutoff provides, at best, a minimally comfortable standard of living. * (19:50) Retired women teachers over 80 years of age, even with OAS and CPP of an undetermined value are likely to find themselv es very close to this low-income cutoff. The annual income is $21,300 or $1,775 a month before taxes. OAS and CPP are fully indexed to CPI. The TRAF portion of a retired teacher's income deteriorates exponentially with a COLA less than CPI.

There are 1,022 women over 80, over 10 percent of all retired teachers, with little or no hope of supplementing their income by working, facing living, at best a minimally comfortable standard of living, if the COLA is not fixed soon. The situation can get nothing but worse for younger teachers. Thank you. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Prendergast, for your presentation. Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much, Ms. Prendergast, for your presentation, and always a pleasure to see you at committee.

In particular, we'd like to thank you for the work that you've done on the spread sheet for us; I think it's important. Certainly, as legislators, we have a lot happening in this building and a lot going across our desk, and when we see numbers like this, again, it's sobering. It reminds us again of committee over a year ago when we had presentations coming forward that were sobering, to say the least, and, you know, again, we really appreciate the fact you're coming forward, and you're not saying, not us, not them. You're being very clear. You're not wanting to take away from anybody else's pension.

What you are saying is that, for all the work and effort that you've put into it and considering the kind of numbers we see here, the least you could expect is the government would live up to its commitment that was made years ago, and that would be a COLA, a reasonable COLA I think is what you were asking for a year ago, and we appreciate it. Thank you very much for coming out again. Ms. Prendergast: Thank you for the opportunity to present. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: And thank you for your presentation. It's always a pleasure to see you. Mr. Dick Marshall. Thank you, sir.

Do you have a written presentation for the committee? Mr. Dick Marshall (Private Citizen): No, I don't. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you very much. You may begin at will. Mr. Marshall: Hi, my name is Dick Marshall. I taught for 37 years, and when I retired, I did not receive a full pension. To receive a full pension, I would have had to work for 43 years. Had I been an MLA, at 35 years, I would have had a full pension. Why the difference? Teachers' pensions are cheap. I see someone is shaking their head, but that's true. Teachers receive a 1.4 percent times every year that they teach. Why the difference?

Well, there are historical reasons. Personally, I'm prepared to call them hysterical, but the point is that there's enough flex in teachers' pensions that the government could, with all due conscience, do exactly the same thing

September 28, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 225 they've done for bill–for the teachers as they've done here in Bill 8. And this has been done through other provinces across this Dominion where teachers' pensions have got into trouble, and they've gone an extra bit. In fact, if you look at the history of the teacher pension plan here in Manitoba, there was a point in time in which the Manitoba government guaranteed the rate of return that the plan would achieve just so that it would continue to be a viable plan. I've been reading a fair bit about the Canada Pension Plan.

I gather I'm older than most of you here. So perhaps I'll just burn your ears a little bit. Canada Pension Plan was invented in 1963 by a minority government, which is kind of an interesting sidelight, and one of its features was that it paid full benefits within 10 years. So, anybody who is 50 years old all of a sudden got a full Canada Pension Plan that they really hadn't paid into. Now, why did they do this?

Well, because most of the people, who were 50 in 1963, most likely were earning during the 1930s, in the Dirty Thirties, and the Depression that they had there, where people's incomes were drastically reduced. There was five years when, on average, the Canadian's average wage declined 25 percent, and ju st at 1939, when they had got back that 25 percent that they'd lost on average, along comes the Second World War, and so they have another six years of privation and sacrifice.

After the war there's approximately 15, 18 years of golden years before inflation hits, but they had sacrificed a fair degree of their earning power, and so it was recognized in the socially justice way that the only way to deal with them was to make their benefits payable to them at an opportune time. I take you now to the teachers' pension plan and to the civil service plan. In 1977 when all of a sudden they started taking over, teachers were paying 50 percent of the indexing. Previous to that, the government was paying 100 percent, from 1970 to '77.

All of a sudden you had people who were receiving a benefit, indexing, that they hadn’t paid for. So, understand some of the anger that you probably have heard from teachers that at a time which they stepped up and started contributing to the COLA, the pension adjustment account to index teacher pensions, that money was being paid out. It wasn't gathering and accumulating in a sufficient fashion to be able to pa y for their indexing when they retire, in my case in 2002.

To have required that of the teachers teaching at that time would, in the words of the people who are devising the Canada Pension Plan, required them to pay twice. You had to pay for the person who came before you, and then you had to pay for yourself. And the idea was with the Canada Pension Plan that over a period of years they would gradually move into a position where the plan would become self-sufficient. Now if you know your history, you know that the favourite whipping boy of the pension plan by 1990s was the Canada Pension Plan.

Some of you may know a fellow by the name of Murray Smith, husband, a significant other of the former MLA, Muriel Smith, and I can recall him as well as MTS staff officers and private investment counsellors in the 1990s saying, when you retire take the Canada Pension Plan full. Don't wait for it, because it may not be there for very long, and that was said, by the way, as late as the year 2000, long after the plan had been fixed. This book, Fixing the Future by Bruce Little is sub-titled, How Canada's Usually Fractious Governments Worked Together to Rescue the Canada Pension Plan.

My point is that this government, or the government of Manitoba, the Manitoba Teachers' Society and the retirees have got to get together and fix this plan because it is not going to get any cheaper. One of the codas that you get from reading that book about the fixing of the Canada Pension Plan is it doesn't get cheaper the longer you wait. Right now there is a tri-annual evaluation being done of the teachers' pension plan and one of things it's going to say again, is that current active teachers are not paying sufficient to cover their future liabilities. I, as a past liability, am in a good category.

The current active teachers are going to have to pay more. There are reasons for this, I don't want to go into, but the point is, that for this–for, again after every third year and for the third year of this particular government's mandate, they are going to be told that the current active teachers are not paying enough, and still there is no contribution increase sufficient to cover that.

There was one three years ago, it was half of what was being asked for. * (20:00) Previous to that, in 2002, when I retired, the Manitoba Teachers' Society was asking for 2.1; 1.1 for the active teachers, 1 percent increase to go directly into the pension adjustment account, in other

226 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 28, 2009 words, to help alleviate the indexing of the teacher pension plan. That's gone now. In seven years, that's gone and it's not gonna get any easier the longer we leave this. So I congratulate this government on doing the right thing, at least with the civil servants. I congratulate them on reaching a consensus so that they don't have people getting angry at them and showing up and saying nasty–saying nasty things about them. And the last point I want to leave you with is this: Canada Pension Plan got fixed.

We have the expertise in this great dominion of ours with regards to pension plans. When I flew into Auckland in 2006, I saw spread over the front page of one of their dailies, "the Canadians are coming," and they were talking about the Canada Pension Plan. The asset–the number of assets in the Canada Pension Plan are so significant that we rank in the top five of all of the heritage plans that are in the world, and that includes the Saudis, the Kuwaitis and the Norwegians. I think I've run out of time. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: You still have a minute, Mr. Marshall. Mr. Marshall: Ah, well, then, I'll keep going. Mr.

Vice-Chairperson: Are there any questions of Mr.–or Mr. Marshall? Mr. Schuler: Yes, Mr. Marshall. Thank you very much for showing up for committee again. We appreciate the fact that you come forward and always bring new information to our committee. You're absolutely right. This can be fixed and this must be fixed.

And certainly we have, we have spoken at length, whether it was a year ago at committee or over the year and, again, on this piece of legislation, is that the government should do the right thing and sit down with all parties and, in a very up front and honest and "integrious" way, start dealing with this issue, because the longer we wait, the more expensive it's gonna get. So we very much appr eciate your comments on this issue. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Schuler. Mr. Marshall: Thank you. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you very, very much. Mr. Wayne Hughes. Than k you very much, Mr. Hughes.

Do you have presentations that our quick staff– Mr. Wayne Hughes (Private Citizen): I do. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: – has passed around? Thank you very much. If you don't mind commencing at will. Thank you. Mr. Hughes: Thank you. Good evening, committee members. Thank you for this opportunity in presenting. If my tally is somewhat correct, I believe you've had some lessons in fairness, justice, mathematics, disabilities, actuarial predictions, history, and that's just to sample a few of the topics that you've been listening to tonight, but your main job, in my opinion, is to ensure fairness and justice.

As a retired teacher, I want to commend the board of civil servants superannuation fund for their forward thinking and their fair-minded approach to the funding of cost-of-liv ing adjustments for their retirees. Mr. Chairperson in the Chair What we see here is a board who is concerned with the welfare of all their members. The planning for this particular event, in terms of the, Bill 8, started well before December 2007, and actually we heard from one of the other presenters it was most likely as far back as 2005 when the reserve account was established.

The government is to be commended for their support and their decision to enact Bill 8 where additional funding is being transferred to the superannuation adjustment account to support the indexing for the next 30 years. So why am I here before your committee? I believe the same standards and the same approaches should be used in another pension plan, which is sponsored by the government of Manitoba. It appears as though we have two very different approaches to transfer of money from the main account to the indexing acco unts.

They are Bill 8, where a significant amount is to be transferred to support future indexing, and the teacher pension plan, where one of the partners, and we've already heard this quote once this evening, that one of the partners says, direct quote: the surplus account in

September 28, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 227 account A should remain in account A. To rob the basic benefit to pay COLA is wrong on every conceivable level, and it's something that the society will never agree to. I thought politicians always believed that, in fact, you should never say never. This person is maybe not a politician. What is needed here, to be fair, is the same or similar approaches to the transfer of monies. If you remember that the monies in the fund belong to both retirees as well as working members, I believe the needs of all members need to be considered.

Interest groups imposing their views are not fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities. A second area of unfairness that I'm concerned about is the difference between the two pension plans and the limiting amount of the way they limit the amount of COLA payment. Throughout the process of passing the ame ndments to the teachers' pension plan last year, we heard teachers should be limited to two-thirds of CPI, just like the civil servants since the two pl ans were sister plans. Consequently, Bill 45 capped all CPI payments to two-thirds CPI for 10 years.

Upon further examination, the CSSA does not–does reduce, sorry, the adjustment by one-third when the prefunding is not sufficient, and that's

section 33(7.1). But the next

section allows for some variation above the two-thirds on this recommendation of the actuary, that's

section 33(8). Again, this appears to be unfair, an unfair application of similar concepts. Namely, retired teachers capped fo r 10 years and the CSSA reduced with a way to increase adjustments if funds are available. In conclusion, I support the fair-minded approach of Bill 8, and encourage and even ask the government to develop standards or guidelines for all government pension plans to follow to ensure the fair treatment of all pension members. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Hughes. Questions? Mr. Schuler: Yes, and thank you very much, Mr. Hughes, for being here this evening.

Great to see you out again and, again, this is a very important issue for thousands of Manitobans who are looking for equality. Appreciated your opening statement where you listed a lot of things that have been raised in regards to the two plans today already and, perhaps, at some point in time, retired teachers will come to be able to realize a proper cost-of-living increase which they paid for, which they are entitled to.

So thank you very much again for coming out, and we certainly appreciate, again, all the presentations from you and all the retired teachers in that they're always full of integrity and always have the numbers and everything is quoted, and we appreciate that as a committee. Floor Comment: Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: No comment, Mr. Hughes? Go ahead. Mr. Hughes: Perhaps the only comment I can make to that is that, as teachers or as former teachers, I think you may notice by now that we're not gonna go away. We do see it as an important issue.

It's integral to our well-being in our well-deserved retirement, and we look forward to the day that things get better. * (20:10) Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Yes, thank you for the presentation. I was here over the summer too when the debate went on and I don't propose to re-debate some of those issues, but the word "actuarial" has been used several times tonight. Were there any actual warnings on the, the teachers, on that fund? Were any actual warnings received? Mr. Hughes: Actuarial warnings on the– An Honourable Member: On the solvency. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Chomiak.

Floor Comment: On the solvency. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hughes: Sorry. We're going to catch up. Mr. Chairperson: You have the floor, sir. Mr. Hughes: Actuarial warnings have been given a number of different times to my knowledge, going back as far as in the 1980s. That's one of our main concerns is that we keep on hearing about it but the inaction has been continued, and, similarly, as Mr. Marshall indicated, that the plan is not getting simpler to fix.

It's just becoming more and more complicated and costly to fix, and so, consequently, we believe that the action needs to be done and it needs to be fair. Could I just add one particular item? Mr. Chairperson: Yes, sir.

228 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 28, 2009 Mr. Hughes: I'd just like to compliment again, Mr. Chomiak, for asking that question. It's–interestingly enough, I've spent about six days at committee hearings, and I will say that's the first question, sir, that we've received from th e government and I thank you for that. Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, I thank you for your presentation. Okay, that concludes presentations on Bill 8. Bill 35–The Municipal Conflict of Interest and Campaign Financing Act (Various Acts Amended) Mr.

Chairperson: We'll go back to Bill 35, The Municipal Conflict of Interest and Campaign Financing Act. I call Mr. Kevin Rebeck, CUPE Manitoba. I see you have some written materials. The clerk will distribute them. You may begin. Mr. Kevin Rebeck (CUPE Manitoba): Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, committee members. The Canadian Union of Public Employees in Manitoba represents over 26,000 public sector workers. The majority of municipal workers are organized under CUPE, and as workers and community members, we take conflict of interest and municipal campaigns very seriously.

Bill 35, The Municipal Conflict of Interest and Campaign Financing Act, will extend the principles and practices of democratic elections in Manitoba, and, therefore, it's an important legislation to pass. The proposed legislation will help strengthen public confidence in municipal government by improving the transparency and accountability for holding elections. The act will extend campaign finance practices and conflict of interest rules to all municipalities in the province and therefore equalize opportunity for all candidates in municipal elections.

As municipal statement of assets and interests related to election for public office are not open to public disclosure, we agree it's time to rationalize requirements within existing standards for provincial elections. It's an important step forward to require these statements be made publicly available, consistent with provincial legislation. The public has a right to know about potential conflict of interest of any elected official and those who support the election of officials.

The legislation would strengthen the existing municipal council conflict of interest law that applies to every mayor and councillor in Manitoba and is therefore important to every citizen for the province. The amendments to the bill would require all Manitoba municipalities, including the City of Winnipeg, to develop a set of bylaws that defines a code of conduct for all employees. It's also a healthy change, and we believe this approach will encourage a greater respect for public officials and encourage citizens to run for office.

The main benefits of the proposed campaign finance rules for all municipalities will be to shift campaign contributions from organizations to individuals; level the playing field for candidates between those who have access to significant financial resources and those who do not; to improve public access to information; to assure candidates and contributors are meeting the requirements of the law and are therefore maintaining the underlying democratic principles we value in Canada; and clarify the obligations of employees to assure public information is not used for private purposes and gains.

We do have a few recommendations, a few specific issues we think should be addressed in the legislation before it's moved on for second reading. In particular, we think you need to add business to the

definitions in

part 2 and 3 dealing with the term, organization. While the act is clear that only individuals can make campaign contributions, it's important to treat all organizational interests the same. If unions are noted in the definition, then businesses or corporations should be as well. We also think we should extend the limits on employees using privileged information to employment or contracts post-employment for the municipality, i.e., employees should be limited in securing employment for companies that do business with the municipality or city from which they left employment.

They shouldn't be able to take that information and use it for private gain. It should require major individuals who contribute to candidates to disclose business relations or ties to the municipal government. For example, individuals will be able to contribute to candidates; they should disclose their business connection that exists with the municipality. We think this legislation should set time limits for municipalities to enact by-laws that provide tax credits for candidates or conduct codes for municipal

September 28, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 229 employees. As the act now reads, there's no deadline for municipalities to take on these requirements. We also think penalties should be increased for breach of the law. A mere $5,000 is insufficient to act as a true deterrent. And, although they're not in the brief, through some discussions this evening with some folks, two other points came up that I think are worthy of note.

One is, while we're dealing with this act, we should look at the ability of candidates to invest in their own campaign to a higher degree than individual contributors and to widen the fundraising window for municipal candidates to have a longer period to raise funds for their campaigns. And we would be in support of those kind of changes. We support Bill 35. We think it can be strengthened with the changes we've referenced. Manitobans deserve to know how campaigns are financed and any real or perceived conflicts of interest that our public officials are involved in. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr.

Rebeck. Open the floor to questions. Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Inter- governmental Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr. Rebeck, for your comments this evening and coming forward and presenting some options that we should look at. As I mentioned to the president of AMM, that we're not going to be proposing any amendments this evening, but we're certainly going to be looking at many of the suggestions from all the presenters on how to make the legislation better, if indeed we can. Thank you. Mr. Rebeck: Great. Well, thank you very much.

It's important that these things be considered, and I'm glad to hear that they'll be given the due diligence they need. Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, sir, I thank you for your presentation. Mr. Rebeck: Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Next on the list is Emily Ternette, private citizen? It's my understanding that she's unable to attend. She asked that her written submission be presented to the committee. What is the will of the committee? [Agreed] A light correction. It's a written submission on behalf of her husband Nick Ternette.

Still agreeable to the committee? [Agreed] Okay, the clerk will distribute the submission. And I will call Councillor Gord Steeves, City of Winnipeg. Mr. Steeves, do you have any written materials for the committee? Mr. Gord Steeves (Council lor, City of Winnipeg): I don't. Mr. Chairperson: You do not. Okay, you may proceed. Mr. Steeves: Just the spoken word tonight, Mr. Chairman, if that's okay. Hello to members of the committee, most of whom I know. It's nice to see you all.

A few comments on Bill 35 as it affects myself and my colleagues, one of whom is joining me here this evening, Councillor Smith from the Mynarski ward. And, of course, one of my former colleagues, Councillor Jae Eadie. I'll start with some comments about being a councillor generally and raising money as a councillor, how difficult it is. You're aware, of course, there's no parties and there's no riding associations. There is no war chest as it were. There's obviously, as you're aware, no raising of money between campaigns.

Any municipal councillor in Winnipeg has to put together their entire funding envelope in a period of just a few months. You may not be aware of that. Sometimes the cost can range as high as $35,000 for the bigger wards. There is no percentage rebate system as there is for provincial, or I think, federal politicians, where you get a large percentage of the monies back if you receive a certain percentage of the vote. * (20:20) When any municipal councillor seeking office in the City of Winnipeg sets about doing so, they essentially show up on a day in June.

They know the election theatre extends till about the third week in October. They have entirely that time to order all their material, get their office and try to gauge how much money they're going to need. It's actually a very, very difficult thing to do, much more difficult than going to submit than somebody in a different order of government, where they have all of this time knowing exactly how much money is in the kitty. That's what makes it difficult to be a municipal

230 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 28, 2009 politician in Winnipeg, in terms of trying to raise money. I'm gonna suggest that those realities make it very unattractive for a lot of people to run for council in the city of Winnipeg. They also grossly favour the incumbent councillor. In terms of overall comments on the suggested changes, I assume the reason we're trying to do this is because there's a fear that someone is going to try to buy an election.

A rich candidate is going to come along and put thousands and thousands of dollars, or their close friends and business associates are going to do the exact same. I can tell you that, in reality, that does not happen. The limits of anywhere between $20,000 and 30,000-ish dollars in any municipal campaign in Winnipeg really make the ultimate financing goals of any municipal politician in Winnipeg very achievable. There's a bit of a myth that there are municipal politicians in Winnipeg that receive large amounts of corporate funding. It simply does not happen, and I think the facts and research would bear that out.

The reality, I'm going to submit, is that any reduction in spending, period, for municipal council in the city of Winnipeg will, again, do nothing but favour the incumbent co uncillor. If the overall amount of money that is spent begins to decrease, if the amount of money that candidates are spending, as a rule, is decreasing and dropping, what that is going to do is going to increase the amount of people in any given ward that are going to enter a race. Again, that is going to favour the incumbent councillor.

It is also, in my respectful opinion, going to put a real premium on the type of candidate who is a press hound or a sensational candidate, who is going to try to run his or her election on sensational media on those types of issues. It's only my opinion, but I don't think we need more politicians like that. On the specifics of the act, the public inspections of statements of assets, we know the current situation. We know what's being proposed. We know that now people are going to have the ability, in all likelihood, to come forward and just take these asset sheets and have a look at them. You know my world.

I know a little bit about your world. We go through grievous and very, very difficult zoning battles right across this city. It is now going to become a matter of course that each and every councillor is going to have their asset sheets pulled and, regardless of whether or not there is anything resembling a conflict, which there won't be because the clerk is already tasked with the obligation of bringing those forward if they are, those types of issues are going to become front and centre in any one of these myriad of difficult zoning decisions that we have to make every single day at the City of Winnipeg.

We've all gone through it. Maybe some of you have gone through it as well. What it's going to do is it's going to make the position a lot less attractive to people. In terms of the unions and the corporation, we know what is being proposed. We know what exists now. The rumours are afoot already of what's going to happen now. The business side is saying the unions are going to be scurrying about, spreading out donations amongst members and getting money into campaigns, having pay backs and all sorts of things.

Union-side, labour-side is concerned that now corporations are going to be spreading money out, having different people and different businesses giving cheques to different people, to have it come through different family members, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I have no idea if any of this or all of this is actually going to come to pass. But I have to ask, I think the potential exists. I think people are concerned about it. Do we really want to take the chance on driving underground like that? I have concerns that it may happen. We should be, perhaps, searching for greater transparency. Mr.

Rebeck mentioned the individual contributions and, with re spect, I agree. The goal, again, here, is a bit of a myth. The Michael Bloomberg or Mr. Bloomberg scenario in New York, where someone pumped $35 million of money into his own campaign, doesn't happen in Winnipeg. I have with me a list of 17 candidates or so who went over top of your proposed limit in terms of individual funding amounts. They are all challengers with the exception of two.

And the two that did get elected to Winnipeg City Council, I would respectfully suggest, are valued members of our council, left-wing councillors, labour councillors, people who were trying to put forward their campaign to the best of their ability. The idea that rich people are funding their own campaigns and getting away with it is a myth. It is not supported in fact. This list of people–public information that anyone can get–is comprised almost entirely of people who came from the grass roots and tried to fund their own campaigns precisely because they could not raise enough money from people they

September 28, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 231 knew, to compete, again, a massive benefit to the incumbent what is being proposed. Again you remember the scenario I painted. You have three months to raise this money. As a candidate, you have to try and guess how much money you're gonna need and where it's going to come from. What if you're wrong? What if you budget for $20,000, and you only spend 10? You're now on the hook personally for $10,000. As if that wasn't bad enough, but now you've broken the law by about $8,500. What are we going to do with that person? Are they arrested?

Are they gonna have to go to court or something of that like? No. I submit that's the wrong way to go in these types of circumstances. It's going to be an en forcement nightmare for the City of Winnipeg. We would have 18 people from the last election who would be looking a

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	39-3-la8
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	39th 3rd hansardpdf la8.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b54e09d601b1913651232fe86525e7c83c3eb6d1

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