LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
THE STANDING
COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Tuesday, July
22, 2008
LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba
CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley)
VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert)
ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6
Members of the Committee
present:
Hon. Messrs. Bjornson, Chomiak, Struthers
Messrs. Altemeyer, Borotsik, Ms. Brick, Messrs. Briese, Derkach, Mses. Howard,
Marcelino, Mr. Schuler
Substitutions:
Mr. Faurschou for Mr. Derkach at 11:15 p.m.
Mr. Dewar for Hon. Mr. Chomiak at 11:30 p.m.
APPEARING:
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, MLA for Inkster
WITNESSES:
Ms. Patricia Gendreau, Private Citizen
Mr. Marcel Gauthier, Private Citizen
Mr. Roger Legal, Private Citizen
Mr. Guy Gagnon, Private Citizen
Mr. Denis Clément, Private Citizen
Ms. Jean M. Taillefer, Private Citizen
Ms. Norma
Lacroix-Gagné, Éducatrices et Éducateurs manitobains à la retraite
Mr.
Antoine Gagné, Private Citizen
Mr. Denis Bisson, Private Citizen
Mr. Lucien Loh, Private Citizen
Mr. Alfred Phaneuf, Private Citizen
Mr. Raymond Bisson, Private Citizen
Ms. Huguette Rempel,
Private Citizen
Mr. Al Nickel, Private Citizen
Mr. David McAuley, Private Citizen
Ms. Pat Isaak, Manitoba Teachers' Society
Ms. Mariette Ferré, Private Citizen
Mr. Tom Ulrich, Private Citizen
Mr. Richard Benoit, Private Citizen
Ms. Anne Monk, Private Citizen
Ms. Karen Boughton, Private Citizen
Mr. Keith Boughton, Private Citizen
Mr. Wayne Hughes, Private Citizen
Mr. Dan Turner, River East Transcona Teachers' Association
WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS:
Gary Lally, Private Citizen
Marilyn Huska, Private Citizen
Bill Cann, Private Citizen
Matt Kawchuk, Private Citizen
Steve Pawlychyn, Private Citizen
Frank Basiuk, Private Citizen
Frances Fraser, Private Citizen
W.A. Fraser, Private Citizen
James Reginald Schmall, Private Citizen
Maurice Noel, Private Citizen
Frances Kogan, Private Citizen
Mary Chalmers, Private Citizen
Victoria Olchowecki, Private Citizen
Pat Trottier, Private Citizen
Beverley Finlayson, Private Citizen
Robert Finlayson, Private Citizen
Donna and Vance Birnie, Private Citizens
Georges Druwe, Private Citizen
Irene Legg, Private Citizen
Sharon Orr, Private Citizen
Muriel Gamey, Private Citizen
Syl Didur, Private Citizen
Dorothy Strachan, Private Citizen
Ian Heather, Private Citizen
Astrid Michal Kuprowski
Hélène McCarthy, Private Citizen
Kristina Ellis, Private Citizen
Tony Baliant, Private Citizen
Karen Boughton, Private
Citizen
John Carroll, Private Citizen
Tom Ulrich, Private Citizen
Pat Isaak, Manitoba Teachers' Society
Mariette Ferré, Private Citizen
Anne Monk, Private Citizen
MATTERS UNDER
CONSIDERATION:
Bill 45–The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic
Development please come to order. Your first item of business this evening is
the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations?
Ms. Jennifer Howard (Fort Rouge): I'd like to nominate Ms. Brick.
Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Brick has been nominated. Are there any other nominations?
Seeing none, Ms. Brick is appointed as Vice-Chair of the committee.
This meeting has
been called to consider Bill 45, The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act. We have
a number of presenters registered to speak this evening listed on the sheet
before you and posted on the board at the entrance of the room.
It was announced
that this committee would sit tonight until midnight. It has also been
announced that this committee will meet again to consider this bill on the
following occasions: tomorrow night from 6 p.m., starting at 6 p.m., and
Thursday, July 24, starting at 10 a.m.
The committee has
previously agreed to hear out-of-town presenters first. I will also note for
the committee that the House leaders have previously agreed that we will hear
all French presentations on Bill 45 at tonight’s meeting, and we will begin
with those presenters very soon.
Before we proceed
with those presentations, though, we do have a number of items and points of
information to consider. I thank the members of the public who are here in
advance for allowing us to get through these procedures before getting to the
presentations.
First of all, if there is
anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation this evening,
please register with the staffperson at the entrance of the room right there at
the table. Also, for the information of all presenters, while written versions
of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompany your
presentation with written materials we ask that you provide 20 copies, and,
once again, staff in the room at the front table can help you with this.
As well, I would like to
inform presenters that in accordance with our rules a time limit of 10 minutes
has been allotted for presentations with another five minutes allowed for
questions from committee members. Also, in accordance with our rules, if a
presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped
to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their
name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list.
Now, we have had a
request from two presenters and I need the committee's direction in this
regard. Laurena Leskiw and
Deanna Dolff, who are numbers 223 and 214 on the
master list, are travelling together from Brandon. Ms. Leskiw
is in the midst of medical procedures and can only attend tomorrow’s meeting.
Due to this, they have asked that their names not be called today and that they
be allowed to present tomorrow. What is the will of the committee? [Agreed]
Thank you very much. We shall, then, not see their names should we reach them
tonight.
Shall we call on
them to speak at the beginning of the meeting or at another time, for tomorrow?
[interjection] Okay, very good. It is agreed that at the beginning of
tomorrow night's meeting, they will be given the opportunity to speak. Very
good. Thank you for that, committee members.
* (18:10)
Written submissions on Bill 45 have been received from the following persons
and distributed to committee members. For the purposes of Hansard which
is recording all of the things said tonight, I will need to read these names
into the official record. They are: Gary Lally,
Marilyn Huska, Bill Cann,
Matt Kawchuk, Steve Pawlychyn,
Frank Basiuk, Frances Fraser, W. A. Fraser, James
Reginald Schmall, Maurice Noel, Frances Kogan, Mary Chalmers, Victoria Olchowecki,
Pat Trottier, Beverley Finlayson, Robert Finlayson,
Donna and Vance Birnie, Georges Druwe,
Irene Legg, Sharon Orr, Muriel Gamey, Syl Didur, Dorothy Strachan, Ian Heather and, an additional
name just submitted moments ago, Astrid Kuprowski,
which is No. 204 on the master list. So if committee members want to mark
Astrid Kuprowski as having turned in a written
submission, they may certainly do so.
Now, does the
committee agree to have these documents as submitted appear in the Hansard
transcript of this evening? [Agreed]
Thank you for that.
Prior to proceeding
with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public
regarding the process for speaking at committee. The proceedings of our
meetings are recorded, as I just mentioned, in order to provide a verbatim
transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA on the
committee or a presenter, I have to first say that person's name. This is to
signal the people in the Hansard office for the Hansard recorder to turn the
appropriate mikes on and off. So we thank you in advance for your patience and
understanding with that process.
Now, as agreed
previously by the House leaders, we will now proceed with our French
presentations. I would like to inform all in attendance, committee members and
members of the public, that simultaneous translation is being provided this
evening. I believe all committee members now do have headsets. Does any member
of the committee not have a headset? Very good.
I would also like to indicate
that members of the public who would like to acquire a headset for tonight,
that is also possible. They are available, again, at the entrance to the room.
You will be required to sign for it for use for this evening and then return it
at the end of tonight's proceedings or when you choose to leave.
I'd also like to remind
members and presenters that, because of the simultaneous translation, we will
need to proceed, shall we say, "gracefully" in our presentations. I
would ask people to speak perhaps a little bit slower than I am right now and a
little bit slower than usual, and to make sure for committee members and
presenters that you are speaking directly into the microphone so that our
hardworking translators will have as easy a time as possible to provide this
important service. We thank you for that.
I will also just say that
while, despite my bilingual wife's best efforts, my Francophone pronunciations
are not quite what they should be, and if I mispronounce anyone's name tonight,
it is certainly not my intention, and you should feel free to correct me when
you come to the podium.
That said, I believe we can
now move to calling the presenters. As is with our normal practice, we will
call out-of-town Francophone presenters first and then move to urban
Francophone presenters.
So the first out-of town
Francophone presenter on our list this evening is No. 5, Patricia Gendreau. Thank you for coming here this evening. Do you
have copies of your presentation for the committee?
Ms. Patricia Gendreau
(Private Citizen): I
believe–a thought, one moment. They were sent to Mr. Yarish,
and if copies are not made, perhaps he could make them, please.
Mr.
Chairperson: Most
certainly. We'll make sure that every member of the committee receives a
written copy. Please, begin your presentation.
Ms. Gendreau: Membres distingués du comité, chers collègues.
A l'époque de mon grand-père, lorsqu'on avait une entente verbale, seule
une poignée de mains scellait la transaction; c'était un fait accompli.
Aujourd'hui, je suis debout devant ce comité car une rupture, une modification
et oui, une injustice importante a été faite par le Nouveau parti démocratique.
L'allocation envers le coût de la vie telle qu'entendue et cotisée ne se fait
pas payer.
Ayant enseigné 25 ans durant les années 1979 à 2006, et étant membre des
Enseignants du Manitoba à la retraite, je tiens à souligner que je ne suis pas
d'accord avec le Projet de loi 45.
Je suis désolée d'être obligée à venir ici pour déclarer l'injustice et
le manque d'intégrité auprès des enseignants à la retraite pratiqués par le
Nouveau parti démocratique. Une grande injustice qui a débuté avec de
nombreuses rencontres sabotées par votre parti et ensuite par un plébiscite
manigancé par le Manitoba Teachers' Society et notre
présent gouvernement ne laissant à peine assez de temps aux enseignants
retraités de répondre adéquatement.
Les première et deuxième lectures du Projet de loi 45 furent exécutées
avec grand empressement le 9 juin 2008, laissant l'impression qu'on ne voulait
pas avoir la présence des enseignants qui s'y opposaient. J'ai fait partie de
la délégation des enseignants à la retraite qui figurait dans la galerie de la
législature le 10 juin et à ma surprise, la discussion du Projet de loi 45 n'y
figurait pas.
Comme les autres enseignants ici présents et ceux qui feront une
présentation durant ces audiences publiques, j'ai payé ma juste part pour une
allocation pour le coût de la vie. Je vous demande de me rendre ce qui m'est
dû.
L'allocation pour le coût de la vie n'est pas un privilège mais un droit
acquis pour lequel les enseignants du Manitoba ont cotisé en surplus. Je vous invite
aujourd'hui à faire la bonne chose et à corriger ce manque d'équité et cette
injustice.
Merci.
Translation
Distinguished members of the committee, esteemed
colleagues.
In the time of my grandfather, when you made a verbal
agreement, a handshake alone sealed the transaction. It was a fait accompli.
Today, I stand before this committee because a rupture, a change and, yes, a
significant injustice has been committed by the New Democratic Party. The
cost-of-living allowance as agreed upon and contributed to is not being paid.
Having taught for 25 years throughout the years 1979 to
2006, and as a member of the Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba, I want
to emphasize that I am not in agreement with Bill 45.
I regret being obliged to come here to point out the
injustice and lack of integrity toward retired teachers being practised by the
NDP. A great injustice that began with numerous meetings that were sabotaged by
your party and then by a plebiscite manipulated by the Manitoba Teachers'
Society and our current government, leaving hardly enough time for retired
teachers to respond properly.
First and second reading of Bill 45 were carried out with
great haste on June 9, 2008, leaving the impression that the presence of
teachers who opposed it was not wanted. I was part of the delegation of retired
teachers in the gallery of the Legislature on June 10, and to my surprise there
was no discussion of Bill 45.
Like the other teachers present here and those who will
be making presentations during these public hearings, I paid my fair share for
a cost-of-living allowance, and I ask that you give me what I am owed.
The cost-of-living allowance is
not a privilege but an acquired right for which Manitoba's teachers made
additional contributions. I call upon you today to do the right thing and to
correct this inequity and this injustice. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you
very much for your presentation.
I should have mentioned earlier two
things. We have a translation device available at the microphone for any
presenters who may wish to hear questions asked by committee members in English
for a French translation for them. So if there are members of the committee who
would like to ask a question, if you would like to use that device, please feel
free.
At
this time I'll also mention that should anyone approach their 10-minute limit,
I will provide a one-minute warning when you are one minute away from your
allotted maximum.
That said, are there any
questions for our presenter?
Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Madame, thank you very
much for your presentation. We appreciate the fact that you have been very
involved in this process up until here. You mentioned about the introduction of
Bill 45; it was very hasty the way it was introduced. In fact, initially we
were approached if not–would it be possible to pass the bill still in the last
sitting and we said absolutely not. We felt that the legislation did not have
the fullness of having people debate it. Certainly we didn't have time. I would
hasten to say I don't think holding a committee in the middle of summer is also
a fair airing of the bill. In the years I've been here, and that's about 10
years, I've never seen this before.
That having been said,
there's something that you raised, and I heard it a lot last night and funny we
hear it right away first thing. You said, an agreement was broken. You called
it an injustice and you said, I've paid for this. Yet we've heard from the
other side that, in fact, that was not the case, that in no point in time was a
COLA guaranteed, that that was actually misinformation.
I think the committee finds
itself wondering because really, if you believe that you're entitled to it,
where did you come to that belief? Is it in legislation? Is it there somewhere?
Could you reflect for us? How was it that you believe so strongly that you are
entitled to a COLA because we heard that all last night and the first presenter
again today. I think that's important because that's what we're hearing
consistently.
Ms. Gendreau:
I can respond just like this. Okay.
* (18:20)
Mr. Chairperson: You can do it in French.
Ms. Gendreau: Oui, okay.
De ma mémoire, je me souviens qu'à un moment donné, c'était demandé aux
enseignants de donner un peu plus d'argent, de payer un peu plus pour le coût
de la vie. Ça c'était au sujet de notre pension. Je me souviens aussi que ceci
a été respecté entre les années 1975 et 1999. On respectait. On donnait le coût
de la vie juste aux professeurs. En 1999, malheureusement, même si on avait
payé plus pour le coût de la vie, les choses changeaient. Et c'est ça que je
crois être l'injustice. Quand on dit quelque chose, quand on promet quelque
chose, le gouvernement nous avait bien encouragés de payer plus pour le coût de
la vie. Et maintenant ça devient changé, et pourquoi?
Bien, on peut dire qu'il y a eu des problèmes. À un moment donné, les
professeurs qui étaient en retraite et les professeurs qui travaillaient, on
avait plus de professeurs en retraite que ceux qui travaillaient.
Aussi, malheureusement, l'argent que nous autres avons versé dans ce COLA-là a
été investi par le gouvernement et je crois qu'il y a eu un manque de gérance.
Moi, je ne suis pas ici pour accuser les gens. Je veux juste que ceci soit
rectifié. Parce que maintenant le COLA existe seulement pour les professeurs si
on a de l'argent pour–s'il y a de l'argent disponible, au lieu, c'est l'argent
qui doit nous être donné.
C'est tout ce que je peux vous dire. Je ne sais pas si c'est clair.
Translation
To my recollection, I recall that at a certain point
teachers were asked to give a little bit more money, to pay a little bit more
for cost of living. That was in regard to our pension. I also recall that this
was respected from the years 1975 to 1999; that is, fair cost of living was
provided to teachers. In 1999, unfortunately, even if we had paid more for the
cost of living, things changed and that's what I believe is the injustice. When
you say something, when you promise something, the government had encouraged us
to pay more for the cost of living and now this has changed. Why?
Well, we can say there were problems. At a certain point,
retired teachers and working teachers, there were more retired teachers than
working ones.
Also, unfortunately, the money that we paid into this
COLA was invested by the government and, I believe, was badly managed. I'm not
here to accuse anybody. I simply want this to be rectified because now the COLA
exists only for teachers if there is money available, whereas it is money that
should be given to us. That's all I can tell you.
I don't know whether that's clear.
Mr. Schuler: Merci, madame.
I
guess what is so frustrating for this committee is we sense that there is a lot
of confusion. I suspect there will be others that will come forward and say,
well, actually, she wasn't right; there was no guarantee. There seems to be a
lot of confusion of what was guaranteed, how much was guaranteed, when it was
guaranteed for, and probably holding committee meetings in the middle of the
summer is not going to help deal with the confusion. We see that this issue has
been bungled from the start, and this is clearly not going to solve it. That is
a real concern for this committee and we really appreciate the fact that you've
come forward. I think everybody who's spoken so far has spoken on both sides
with great integrity. I think we have a lot of confusion on both sides of what
was actually committed to and what is the obligation of the government. I don't
even know if the government has it straight.
I
appreciate you coming forward and laying out your concerns for the committee.
We really appreciate it. Merci.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your time with us this
evening, Ms. Gendreau. Time for questions has
expired, of five minutes.
Our next out-of-town and
Francophone presenter, No. 6, Marcel Gauthier. Copies of your presentation
have just been distributed to committee members. We thank you for that, sir.
You may begin.
Mr. Marcel Gauthier (Private
Citizen): Bonsoir.
Honorables ministres, M. Bjornson, ministre–j'oublie les noms. M. Schuler,
distingués membres du comité, chers collègues, merci de m'avoir accordé
l'opportunité de vous adresser la parole aujourd'hui. Je m'appelle Marcel
Gauthier. Je suis né au Manitoba. J'ai fait mes études secondaires au Manitoba
ainsi que mes études postsecondaires. J'ai œuvré dans les écoles publiques du
Manitoba durant une période de 31 ans, de 1975 à 2006. Si je parle français et
anglais aujourd'hui c'est parce que j'étais dans les écoles du Manitoba.
Je ne vais pas vous répéter toute la rhétorique des pours et des contres du
Projet de loi 45. Vous la connaissez très bien. Je vais par contre vous ramener
à la mémoire quelques évènements particuliers qui ont précédé les élections de
1999 lorsque le présent gouvernement a été élu en sa première assemblée
majoritaire depuis 10 ans. Lors des nombreuses manifestations des enseignants
et des enseignantes pour opposer des projets du gouvernement, soit les journées
Filmon ou le Projet de loi 72, l'honorable Gary Doer et M. Tim Sale ainsi que
de nombreux membres du Nouveau parti démocratique se montraient toujours en
appui avec les enseignants et leur causes. Les membres du Nouveau parti
démocratique promettaient la justice, non seulement aux enseignants mais aussi
à la population du Manitoba.
Vous, les membres du Nouveau parti démocratique en êtes maintenant à votre
troisième mandat majoritaire. Avez-vous oublié les promesses que vous nous
aviez faites? Êtes-vous si sécures dans vos postes que vous allez trahir les
gens qui vous ont appuyés et qui vous ont élus?
Le Projet de loi 45 est une injustice aux enseignants à la retraite, une
injustice surprenante promulguée par un parti qui se dit juste et honnête. Je
vous incite donc à défaire ce projet de loi et à prendre les démarches
nécessaires pour remettre aux enseignants à la retraite les allocations pour le
coût de la vie pour lesquelles ils ont payé. Merci.
Translation
Good evening, honourable
ministers, Mr. Bjornson, minister–I forget the names. Mr. Schuler, distinguished members of the
committee, esteemed colleagues. Thank you for having given me the opportunity
to speak to you today. My name is Marcel Gauthier. I was born in Manitoba. I
completed my secondary studies in Manitoba as well as my post-secondary
studies. I worked in the public schools of Manitoba for 31 years from 1975 to
2006. If I speak French and English today, it's because I was in Manitoba's
schools.
I'm not going to repeat to you all the rhetoric of the
pros and cons of Bill 45; you know it very well. However, I do want to remind
you of certain specific events that preceded the elections of 1999 when the
current government was elected with its first majority in 10 years. At the time
of numerous demonstrations by teachers in opposition to various government
projects, be it Filmon days or Bill 72, the honourable Gary Doer and Mr. Tim
Sale, as well as many members of the NDP always showed their support for the
teachers and their causes. The members of the NDP promised justice not only for
the teachers but also for the population of Manitoba. You, the members of the
NDP, are now in your third majority mandate. Have you forgotten the promises
that you made to us? Are you so secure in your positions that you are going to
betray the people who supported you and who elected you?
Bill 45 is an injustice to retired teachers, a surprising
injustice, promulgated by a party that claims to be fair and honest. I
therefore urge you to undo Bill 45 and to take the necessary measures to return
retired teachers the cost-of-living allowances for which they have paid. Thank
you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, monsieur.
Questions.
Mr. Schuler: Monsieur, merci, for your presentation. We appreciate the fact
that you've waited for as long as you have, very patiently, and have brought
forward a presentation that I think is good for the committee to hear. It
really does come down to that this is probably less an issue of active teachers
and retired teachers but rather the role government played and politicians
played over the last 25 years when it comes to teachers' pensions.
I think probably what we need
now–and we heard that yesterday from other presenters–is leadership, leadership
from a political level, to deal with this issue, and you certainly have raised
that. You talk again and you mention betrayal and injustice. Unfortunately,
what we have here is a field of broken dreams if there has been commitment
made, commitment made, commitment made, and not lived up to.
Certainly, I, as one of the
committee members, and I know the committee agrees with me, this has become
just an unfortunate pattern from yesterday to today, and I believe this is
something that should be solved at the political level.
I ask
you to reflect on it, and, once again, I would try a little bit more of my
French on you, but you would probably not understand it so I will leave it at
that. Merci, for coming to committee.
Mr. Chairperson: Monsieur Gauthier, if you would like
to make a response, you can.
Mr. Gauthier: Trust me, I would understand your
French.
Not to say that when we spend
many hours doing presentations, opposing Filmon days as well as Bill 72, you
understand there was also a question of leadership at that time. So I'm not
saying that the NDP is entirely in wrong or that the PCs would be doing a much
better job now. It's just that whoever's in power needs to be aware of what the
population needs, what the population expects, and if they want to get
re-elected, they need to pay heed to that.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon West):
Merci, Monsieur Gauthier. I also will not embarrass
you or myself with my French, but I do thank you for being here.
I have a couple of questions.
First of all, you are well aware that up until 1999, the retired teachers did
receive full COLA.
Mr. Gauthier: The COLA being paid to them was taken
right out of the capital funds of the fund, and the fund had been improperly
managed, I believe.
Mr. Borotsik: Fair ball, but, certainly, I do believe
the government of the day did feel that it was necessary that retired teachers
have the full benefit of full COLA in order to maintain their lifestyle.
I have a question about the
plebiscite. The plebiscite was handled by MTS and the government. I ask two
questions very quickly. One is did you vote in the plebiscite, and when the
ballot was sent out, was it sent out in both French and English and were the
directions given in French as well?
Mr. Gauthier: It was bilingual and I responded in
French. I responded the day after I received it. I was informed by many of my
colleagues who were busy doing work, visiting family, who were not necessarily
close to their home at that time, that they were not able to respond in time.
Their ballot was spoiled because it didn't come in time. So I feel that the
whole plebiscite thing was a waste.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I just thank the
presenter. I, too, was at that rally back in the '90s.
Actually, I sat beside Mr. Doer and actually was able to follow right beside
their big, huge, red apple. You might recall that.
* (18:30)
Having said that, you make
reference to a feeling that you had in terms of, that they were supportive of
the needs of the teachers, or was there something more specific that you can
look back on as to dealing with the teachers' pensions? Did the NDP ever deal
with that specific issue in opposition and make commitments?
Mr. Gauthier: Pensions were not referred to directly
as it was not the subject being handled at that time. The events I mention is
in November of 1998. We were on the steps of the Legislature, and I remember
standing beside Mr. Doer holding up the banner for the Manitoba Teachers'
Society banner. I was a very active member at that time. I remember Mr. Doer
standing up and promising that if he were the government in charge at that
time, there would be no such thing as a Filmon day. There would be no such
thing as major cutbacks to education, budgets and on and on and on, left, right
and centre.
Sadly enough, the Filmon days
did go ahead and it did impact upon our pensions today. But that's not what we
are discussing today. But in answer to your question, yes, it was bilingual,
yes, I respond in French.
Mr. Chairperson: Time for questions has expired. We
thank you for your time with us here this evening.
Our next Francophone and
rural presenter potentially is Roger Legal. Good evening, sir. Do you have
copies? The committee will receive copies, so you may begin when you're ready.
Oh, sorry, excuse me, Mr.
Schuler?
Mr. Schuler: Number 36.
Mr. Chairperson: Number 36 on page 4. Are we all on
the same page, so to speak? Sir, you may begin.
Mr. Roger Legal (Private Citizen): Merci.
Mesdames et messieurs, merci pour l'occasion de vous adresser la parole.
Cela nous permettra peut-être de faire corriger la malheureuse situation dans
laquelle le gouvernement s'est embourbé. J'espère seulement que cet exercice
est honnête, que le gouvernement écoute de façon attentive et qu'il est ouvert
à l'idée de redresser les iniquités flagrantes qui se trouvent dans le Projet
de loi 45. Si l'exercice est tenu pour la forme seulement ou par obligation, eh
bien là, c'est l'insulte qui s'ajoute à l'injure. Et puisqu'on frôle déjà la
supercherie, que dire au sujet de cet infâme plébiscite de mai dernier? Cet
exercice ressemblait étrangement à de la machination mesquine, méprisable et
honteuse. Nous avançons en âge un peu, mais nous n'avons pas encore perdu
toutes nos facultés. Ne nous prenez pas pour des valises.
Passons au problème lui-même. Clairement,
l'intention des parties prenantes à l'entente original était que les
enseignants à la retraite profitent du COLA le plus élevé possible, soit 100
pour cent. Pour illustrer que l'entente avait été faite de bonne foi, le
maximum avait été fixé à 100 pour cent et, en effet, ce maximum a été accordé à
de nombreuses reprises.
En somme, le gouvernement de l'époque
avait établi des provisions décentes dans la loi. Ce sont ces provisions
décentes que le gouvernement actuel se propose maintenant de dénaturer. Il
devrait plutôt amender la loi pour garantir le 100 pour cent à tous les ans. Ce
n'est vraiment pas édifiant de s'en prendre ainsi à un groupe de personnes et
surtout de diriger ce sale coup contre ceux et celles qui se sont dépensés pour
éduquer la jeunesse. Vous conviendrez avec moi qu'éduquer la jeunesse, c'est le
meilleur investissement qu'une société puisse faire. Ne serait-il pas dans
l'ordre de s'assurer que les gens qui ont donné d'eux-mêmes à cette tâche
puissent profiter d'une retraite raisonnable, d'un repos bien mérité en toute
quiétude? Ce que vous proposez au contraire est ingrat et indécent. Disons-le
clairement, ce n'est pas seulement disgracieux, c'est honteux.
On s'indigne lorsque l'on entend que des
personnes crasses ont profité de la vulnérabilité de leurs parents âgés pour
les déposséder de leurs biens et pour abuser d'eux. Pourtant, ce que vous
proposez de faire ressemble étrangement au scénario que je viens de décrire. De
plus, vous le faites à grande échelle, auprès de toute une tranche de retraités
et vous le faites sans gêne, au grand jour. C'est tellement honteux que j'en
éprouve de la pitié pour vous.
Passons pour un moment du bâton à la
carotte; ça sera plus doux, plus paisible et plus édifiant aussi. Peut-être que
le gouvernement sera plus sensible à des arguments invitant à l'émulation des
temps plus glorieux. Je me suis récemment procuré la biographie de l'honorable
Laurent Desjardins habilement écrit par Bernard Bocquel,
que je salue au passage. Lui, Laurent Desjardins, le mérite bien le titre
d'honorable. Quand on se plonge dans la lecture de ce livre, on revit, entre
autres, les beaux moments du tandem Schreyer-Desjardins des années
soixante-dix.
Le gouvernement de l'époque, inspiré de ses
chefs, a su, par exemple, adopter des mesures réparatrices envers la minorité
de langue officielle de la province. Il l'a fait avant même de se faire tirer
l'oreille par la Cour suprême du Canada. Ces redressements, le gouvernement
Schreyer les a adoptés non pas parce qu'il s'était préalablement engagé à le
faire, mais simplement parce que c'était décent, c'était la chose à faire.
La Loi 113 rétablissant le droit à
l'enseignement en français à 100 pour cent du temps a été adoptée un peu plus
d'un an seulement après l'arrivée au pouvoir du premier gouvernement
néo-démocrate du Manitoba. Ça, c'était du savoir-faire; ça, c'était de la
grâce; ça, c'était de la classe; ça, c'était de la justice; ça, c'était du
respect.
Qu'est-ce qui en est de l'équipe ministérielle actuelle? Je ne saurais
prétendre la connaître beaucoup. J'ai une assez bonne opinion du premier
ministre Doer, sans le connaître personnellement. Je ne connais pas le ministre
de l'Éducation Bjornson à part du fait qu'il s'est mis les pieds dans les plats
quelques fois dernièrement, spécialement dans le cas des fermetures d'écoles et
plus particulièrement celle de l'École Provencher. Par ailleurs, je crois
connaître plutôt bien les ministres Selinger et Lemieux pour qui j'ai
énormément de respect. Comment peuvent-ils rester muets dans un cas d'injustice
aussi flagrante? Je n'y comprends rien.
S'il s'agit du principe de la solidarité ministérielle, il me semble que celle-ci
est étirée au-delà de l'élasticité maximum. La solidarité ministérielle ne doit
pas obliger au silence en cas d'injustice et de trahison.
* (18:40)
Laurent Desjardins ne restait pas muet en telles circonstances. Dans le cas de
la prise en charge de l'assurance automobile par le gouvernement, par exemple,
les agents privés allaient perdre leurs chemises selon le premier plan avancé
par le gouvernement. Laurent Desjardins ne pouvait pas laisser cette injustice
se produire. Il s'est battu
bec et ongles au sein du caucus contre les Sid Green et les Cy
Gonick pour modifier le plan afin que les agents
privés soient traités de façon juste et correcte. Schreyer a appuyé Desjardins
dans ce bras de fer de manière à ce que toutes les parties impliquées sortent
gagnantes. Sid Green, le plus farouche antagoniste de Laurent Desjardins dans
cette affaire admet candidement en rétrospective, et c'est indiqué dans le
livre de Laurent Desjardins, que la décision poussée par Desjardins avait été
la bonne.
Je vais conclure maintenant. J'ai passablement louangé le premier
gouvernement néo-démocrate d'Ed Schreyer qui avait gouverné à base de justice
et de magnanimité. Le gouvernement néo-démocrate actuel, on ne lui demande pas
la magnanimité de l'époque glorieuse des Schreyer et Desjardins. On lui demande
simplement de faire preuve de justice.
Merci pour votre attention.
Translation
Ladies and Gentlemen,
thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. Perhaps this will allow us to
correct the unfortunate situation in which the Government of Manitoba has
gotten itself stuck. I only hope that this exercise is honest, that the
government is listening attentively, and that it is open to the idea of
resolving the flagrant iniquity to be found in Bill 45.
If this exercise is
carried out strictly for the sake of form or because it is obligatory, then
this is adding insult to injury. Since we are coming close to talking about
trickery, what can we say about that infamous plebiscite of last May? That
exercise looked strangely like petty, contemptible and shameful machination. We
may be getting older but we have not lost all our faculties yet. Don't take us
for fools.
Let's talk about the problem itself. Clearly the
intention of the parties to the original agreement was that retired teachers
would benefit from the highest COLA possible, which is 100 percent. To
illustrate that this agreement had been made in good faith, the maximum was set
at 100 percent, and as a matter of fact, that maximum was granted many times.
Overall, the government of the day had established decent provisions in the
act. It is those decent provisions that the current government is now proposing
to distort. Instead it should change the law to guarantee 100 percent every
year. It's really not
edifying to go after a group of people like that and particularly to
strike this low blow at those who have given of themselves educating our youth.
You will agree with me that educating young people is the best investment that
a society can make. Wouldn't it be in order to ensure that the people who have
given of themselves for this work can benefit from a reasonable retirement, a
well-deserved rest in tranquillity? What you are proposing is ungrateful and
indecent. Let's put it clearly, not only is it disgraceful, it's shameful.
We are indignant when we hear of unscrupulous people
taking advantage of the vulnerability of their elderly relatives to dispossess
them of their property and abuse them. But what you are proposing to do
strangely resembles the scenario that I have just described. Moreover, you are
doing it on a large scale to a whole group of retired people and are doing it
shamelessly in broad daylight. It is so disgraceful that I feel pity for you.
Let's switch a moment from the stick to the carrot; this
will be gentler, calmer and more edifying as well. Maybe the government will be
more receptive to arguments that invite it to emulate more glorious times. I
recently obtained the biography of the honourable Laurent Desjardins, skilfully
written by Bernard Bocquel, whom I salute in passing.
Laurent Desjardins well deserves the title of honourable. In reading this book
you relive, among other things, the great days of the Schreyer-Desjardins duo
during the '70s.
The government of the day, inspired by its leader, was so
enlightened, for example, as to adopt reparatory measures in relation to the
official language minority of this province. It did so even before having its
ear pulled by the Supreme Court of Canada. This redress was undertaken by the
Schreyer government, not because it had previously agreed to do so, but simply
because it was right; it was the thing to do.
Bill 113, which re-established the right to instruction
in French 100 percent of the time was adopted just a little over a year after
the arrival of the first NDP government in Manitoba. That was know-how, that
was grace, that was class, that was justice, that was respect.
What about the current Cabinet team? I can't say that I'm
well acquainted with it. I have a fairly good opinion of Premier Doer although
I do not know him personally. I do not know the Minister of Education, Mr.
Bjornson, except that he has put his foot in it a few times lately, especially
over school closures and particularly over the closing of Provencher School.
Other than that, I think I know Ministers Selinger and Lemieux rather well and
I have enormous respect for them. How can they remain silent in a case of such
flagrant injustice? I do not understand.
If it's a matter of the principle of ministerial
solidarity, I think it's being stretched beyond its maximum elasticity.
Ministerial solidarity should not require silence in cases of injustice and
betrayal.
Laurent Desjardins did not remain silent in such
circumstances. With the government takeover of automobile insurance, for example,
private agents were going to lose their shirts under the first plan put forward
by government. Laurent Desjardins could not allow this injustice to occur. He
fought tooth and nail within caucus against the Sid Greens and the Cy Gonicks
to have the plan modified so that private agents would be treated fairly and
properly. Schreyer supported Desjardins in this arm-wrestling match so
that all parties involved came out winners. Sid Green, Laurent Desjardins'
fiercest opponent in this, candidly admitted in retrospect, and this is
indicated in the Desjardins biography, that the decision promoted by Desjardins
was the right one.
I will conclude now. I have given considerable praise to
the first NDP government of Ed Schreyer, which governed on the basis of justice
and magnanimity. From the current NDP government, we're not asking for the
magnanimity of the glorious era of Schreyer and Desjardins; we are simply
asking that it demonstrate fairness.
Thank you for your
attention.
Mr. Chairperson: Merci, monsieur.
Questions for the presenter?
Mr. Schuler: Merci,
Monsieur Legal. We certainly appreciate the fact that you've come to committee
and with quite a bit of passion have put forward a really good case for your
side. I wrote down a few notes. You talked about is this an honest process; is
this committee just being held for form. You talk about the plebiscite being
mean and shameful, and you asked, don't make fools of us. That's always a
frightening thing when voters come forward and say, don't start making fools of
us, because that's a serious threat, and you say about the right thing to do.
Back to the honest process. We're here in
the middle of summer, sitting until midnight, three nights in row, swatting
mosquitoes. I guess we can all decide if that's an honest process. I spoke to
the other presenter, and really this is something that over 25 years
politicians of all ages and of all stripes have kind of allowed to happen, all
before my showing up here. I'm one of the newer MLAs. But it is probably time
for political leadership to stand up and deal with this issue. The Prime
Minister, who probably wasn't born when the residency issue happened with the
First Nations, got up and apologized for it and has done something.
Could you reflect for us,
what do you feel it would take to resolve this issue, that we don't have two
wonderful and well-respected professional organizations coming forward and
having to plead their case until midnight, night after night after night. What would you like to see?
Mr. Legal: Merci. Pour les détails techniques je ne
prétends pas être au courant de tout ce tralala. Je m'en remettrai au
porte-parole officiel des éducatrices et éducateurs Francophones du Manitoba
pour donner ces details et je ne pense pas que c'est
dans le contexte d'audiences publiques que vous aurez forcément ces choses-là.
Si j'étais parmi vous à titre de consultant, je vous demanderais de faire venir
quelques personnes clefs au-delà de celles qui se présentent volontiers ici
pour vous dire précisément quelles sont les attentes. Notamment, s'il y avait
une représentation de la Manitoba Teachers' Society
et de RTAM qui inclut les ÉMR, je pense qu'il y
aurait moyen d'arriver à quelque chose de raisonnable.
Maintenant ce que je comprends qui rend
le reste des choses difficile, c'est que le gouvernement a comme fait un pacte
avec la MTS à l'insu de RTAM et des ÉMR, ce qui
compliquerait passablement la chose advenant qu'ils voudraient avoir recours à
un procédé comme celui que je suggère.
Translation
When it comes to the technical details, I don't claim to be knowledgeable about
all that stuff. I will rely on the official spokesperson for the
Francophone educators of Manitoba to provide those details, and I don't think
it is in the context of public hearings that you will necessarily get those
things. If I were with you as a consultant, I would ask you to bring in a few
key people other than those who are coming here voluntarily to tell you exactly
what the expectations are. Specifically, if there was representation from the
Manitoba Teachers' Society and RTAM, which includes the ÉMR,
I think that there would be a way to arrive at something reasonable. But
what I understand that makes the rest difficult is that the government has
entered into a sort of pact with the MTS without the knowledge of RTAM and the ÉMR,
which would definitely complicate things if they wanted to have recourse to a
procedure like the one I suggest.
Mr. Chairperson: Merci. Are
there any other questions? Seeing none, merci
beaucoup, Monsieur Legal.
For committee members, I
believe the next out-of-town and Francophone presenter is on page 10, No. 108,
Monsieur Guy Gagnon.
Good evening, sir. The
committee members have copies of your presentation, so you may begin whenever
you like.
Mr. Guy Gagnon (Private Citizen): Alors, bonsoir. Permettez-moi tout
d'abord de me présenter et de vous donner un aperçu historique de mes expériences
professionnelles, afin de vous démontrer ma crédibilité dans la matière
concernant le Projet de loi 45 sur les amendements proposés à l'acte des
éducateurs et des éducatrices.
Je suis Guy Gagnon, un enseignant nouvellement retraité depuis juin 2007. Je
demeure à Sainte-Agathe, une petite communauté francophone, à 40 kilomètres au
sud de Winnipeg.
J'ai complété mes études universitaires au Collège de Saint-Boniface ainsi qu'à
l'Université du Manitoba. Ma carrière en éducation s'est étendue sur 34 ans;
c'est-à-dire de septembre 1973 à juin 2007. J'ai enseigné tous les niveaux de
la septième à la douzième année tout d'abord à l'École Précieux-Sang,
anciennement du conseil scolaire Norwood et maintenant dans la nouvelle
division scolaire Riel comprenant aussi les écoles qui faisaient partie de
Saint-Vital et Saint-Boniface.
En 1994, je suis passé à la Division scolaire franco-manitobaine. Ma carrière a
continué au Collège Louis-Riel. En 1996, je me suis engagé à venir en aide aux
élèves ayant des difficultés académiques mais qui brillaient par leur
intelligence mécanique. Mes années passées au Programme alternatif au Collège
Louis-Riel et, en 2002, à l'École régionale de Saint-Jean-Baptiste, m'ont été
particulièrement enrichissantes.
Mon engagement en éducation ne s'est pas limité à la salle de classe. De 1982 à
1986, j'étais commissaire d'école dans l'ancienne division scolaire francophone
de la Rivière Rouge. J'ai témoigné et été impliqué à des changements importants
dans le domaine d'éducation durant cette époque, entre autres, l'agencement de
la neuvième année au secondaire et l'introduction du système de crédits
scolaires que nous connaissons dans nos secondaires aujourd'hui. En plus, les
discussions et pourparlers allaient bon train en ce qui concernait l'éventuelle
amalgamation des écoles du conseil scolaire Rivière Rouge à la DSFM.
Aujourd'hui, je continue d'œuvrer dans un domaine qui m'a toujours passionné.
J'enseigne des cours de francisation à de jeunes parents de familles exogames
déterminés d'apprendre le français pour venir en aide à leurs enfants inscrits
à l'école franco-manitobaine de Sainte-Agathe.
Donc comme vous pouvez voir, chers membres de ce comité législatif, je possède
une expérience adéquate en éducation qui me permet de vous parler et de
partager avec vous mes graves préoccupations concernant certaines des
recommandations du rapport Sale qui feront partie du Projet de loi 45.
Je passe maintenant à la rentrée en matière. Durant mes 34 années comme enseignant,
je me suis toujours engagé, intéressé et impliqué aux affaires de mon
association professionnelle, la Manitoba Teachers'
Society. Par le biais de mon association locale, initialement la Norwood Teachers' Association et ensuite l'Association des
éducateurs et éducatrices franco-manitobains, l'AÉFM,
la préoccupation autant professionnelle que financière et personnelle envers le
membership était toujours primordiale.
Je ne peux compter le nombre d'heures personnelles, au loin des membres de ma
famille, souvent des réunions qui dépassaient minuit, passées en réunion
concernant soit les négociations salariales; les bénéfices marginaux à nos
membres; la formation professionnelle; les diverses initiatives parrainées par
la Manitoba Teachers' Society, et j'en passe.
En plus, j'ai toujours cru et appuyé à 100 pour cent les recommandations des
cadres administratifs de la Manitoba Teachers'
Society en ce qui a trait aux augmentations de nos cotisations
professionnelles. C'était simple : ces augmentations, comme on a référé
tantôt, nous garantissaient un régime de pension suffisant lorsque viendrait le
temps de la retraite. Il était entendu que l'indexation en fonction du coût de
la vie faisait partie de l'équation afin de s'assurer que mon régime de pension
serait protégé des ravages de l'inflation. D'ailleurs, presque 17 pour cent de
mes contributions mensuelles, lorsque j'étais enseignant, est allé dans le
compte de redressement justement pour nous donner une augmentation en fonction
du coût de la vie à chaque année.
* (18:50)
J'avais connu particulièrement dans les années 1980 des années où l'inflation
battait son plein; où les taux hypothécaires moyennaient, comme on s'en
souviendra, les 10, 12, 18 pour cent et plus. Mes cotisations augmentaient,
mais j'étais confiant que mon avenir financier, une fois à la retraite, serait
assuré.
Nous sommes maintenant en 2008. Je suis à la retraite depuis un peu plus d'un
an seulement. Et quelle année ai-je connu comme retraité. Imaginez ma stupéfaction
de voir et d'entendre ma propre association professionnelle, la MTS, que j'ai
appuyé corps et âme pendant 34 ans, en collaboration, en pacte, comme a dit le
présentateur juste avant moi, M. Legal, en
collaboration avec un gouvernement néo-démocrate que j'ai toujours appuyé
politiquement et que je croyais être un allié sans pareil de l'éducation au
Manitoba et des éducateurs et éducatrices en particulier. Imaginez ma grande
surprise et ma déception de voir et de témoigner ces deux alliés maintenant devenus
les durs, les instigateurs d'un mouvement pour nier les bénéfices financiers de
11 000 hommes et femmes qui ont œuvré en éducation dans cette province une
bonne partie sinon toute leur vie professionnelle.
Au début de ce long et ardu processus, récit, je ne pouvais pas croire que mon
association agirait de la sorte. D'ailleurs j'ai voté pour l'actuelle
présidente de la Manitoba Teachers' Society, Mme Pat
Isaak, lorsqu'elle s'est présentée à ce poste, car elle me donnait l'impression
d'une personne intègre et juste qui pouvait réconcilier les différends entre
individu et organisme. Je croyais aussi que les membres du gouvernement Doer et
plus particulièrement le ministre de l'Éducation, M. Peter Bjornson, ancien
éducateur lui-même, auraient été plus sensibilisés aux droits et à la
sauvegarde économique de Manitobains et Manitobaines ayant œuvré en éducation
et qui se sont engagés à la formation académique, personnelle et sociale de
notre belle jeunesse manitobaine.
Hélas. Il était évident que les responsables de la MTS et de ce gouvernement
n'avaient aucune intention de respecter les droits des ces 11 000
anciennes éducatrices et éducateurs en ce qui concerne la pleine indexation au
coût de la vie de leur régime des retraités, un régime, je répète, où chaque
enseignant a connu des augmentations substantielles dans ses cotisations dans
les années passées afin d'obtenir cette indexation à 100 pour cent.
M. Tim Sale a rédigé son rapport. La grande recommandation : que pour les
10 prochaines années on se limite à une indexation ne dépassant pas les deux
tiers du coût de la vie et, bien sûr–
Translation
Good
evening. First, allow me to introduce myself and to give you a brief summary of
my professional experience so as to demonstrate my credibility on the topic of
Bill 45 amending The Teachers' Pensions Act.
My name
is Guy Gagnon. I am a teacher, newly retired since June, 2007. I am living in
Ste. Agathe, a small Francophone community 40 kilometres south of Winnipeg. I completed my university
studies at St. Boniface College and at the University of Manitoba. My career in
education spanned 34 years from September, 1973 to June, 2007. I have taught at
all levels from grade 7 to grade 12, first at École Précieux-Sang,
formerly in the Norwood School Division and now part of the new Riel school
division, which also includes schools that were part of St. Vital and St.
Boniface.
In l994 I went over to the Division scolaire
franco-manitobaine. I continued my career at Collège Louis-Riel. In 1996 I
committed to helping students who had academic difficulties but who shone in
mechanical ability. The years I spent in the alternative program at Collège
Louis-Riel, and in 2002 at the St. Jean Baptiste regional school, were
particularly enriching for me.
My
commitment to education has not been limited to the classroom. From 1982 to
1986 I was a school trustee in the former Red River school division. I
witnessed and participated in important changes in the field of education
during that time, including the inclusion of grade 9 in the secondary level and
the introduction of the academic credits that we now use in our secondary
schools. As well, discussions and negotiations concerning the amalgamation of
the Red River school division with the DSFM were well underway.
Today, I
continue to work in a field I have always loved. I teach French to young
parents of exogamous families determined to learn French so as to help their
children who are enrolled at the Franco-Manitoban school in Ste. Agathe. As you can see, members of the committee, I have
sufficient experience in education to speak to you and share with you my
serious concerns about some of the recommendations of the Sale report which
will be part of Bill 45.
I will
now get into the subject. During my 34 years of teaching I was always committed
to, interested in and involved in the business of my professional association,
the Manitoba Teachers' Society. Through my local association, initially the
Norwood Teachers' association and then the Association des éducateurs
et éducatrices franco-manitobains,
the AÉFM, my concern for its membership
professionally as well as financially and personally, always was paramount. I
cannot count the number of hours of personal time that I spent away from my
family in meetings past midnight over salary negotiations, fringe benefits for
our members, professional development, and various initiatives sponsored by the
Manitoba Teachers' Society and others.
Moreover,
I always believed in and supported 100 percent recommendations from the MTS
administration concerning increases to our contributions. It was simple: those
increases, as stated earlier, guaranteed us a sufficient pension at retirement.
It was understood that indexation based on the cost of living was part of the
equation to ensure that my pension would be protected from the ravages of
inflation. Almost 17 percent of my monthly contributions when I was a teacher
went to the pension adjustment account, precisely to give us a cost-of-living
increase each year.
In the 1980s I experienced years where inflation was at its worst,
where you'll recall that mortgage rates averaged 10, 12, 18 percent and more.
My contributions increased, but I trusted that my financial future, once I retired,
would be secure.
Now it's
2008. I have been retired for just a little over a year now, and what a year
I've had as a retiree. Imagine my shock when I heard and saw my own
professional association, the MTS, the association that I supported body and soul
for 34 years, in collaboration–in a pact, as Mr. Legal, the speaker before me,
put it–with an NDP government that I have also always supported politically and
which I thought was an unparalleled ally of education in Manitoba, and of
teachers in particular. Imagine my astonishment and my disappointment when I
saw those two allies turn tough and become the instigators of a movement to
deny financial benefits to 11,000 men and women who worked in education in this
province for a good part, if not all, of their professional lives.
At the
beginning of this long and difficult process, this story, I couldn't believe
that my association would act that way. Indeed, I voted for the current
president of the MTS, Mrs. Pat Isaak, when she ran for election because I had
the impression she was a person of integrity and fairness who could
reconcile differences between individuals and the organization. I also thought
that the members of the Doer government, and, in particular, the Minister of
Education (Mr. Bjornson), who is a former teacher himself, would be more
sensitive to the rights and the financial security of Manitobans who worked in
the field of education and who committed themselves to the academic, personal
and social development of our fine Manitoba youth.
Unfortunately,
it was obvious that the MTS leadership and this government had no intention of
respecting the rights of those 11,000 former teachers concerning the full
indexation of their pension plan to the cost of living, a plan, I repeat, for
which each teacher made substantial increases in contributions in the past so
as to obtain 100 percent indexing.
Mr. Sale
has written his report. The big recommendation is that for the next 10 years we
be limited to indexing that does not go over two-thirds of the cost of living
and, of course–
Mr. Chairperson: Monsieur, une minute. [One minute, sir.]
Mr.
Gagnon: –à
condition que les marchés financiers soient suffisamment performants.
Le gouvernement Doer n'a pas le droit
moral d'aller de l'avant en donnant suite par le biais du Projet de loi 45 aux
recommandations du rapport Sale, particulièrement en ce qui concerne
l'indexation.
Autre constatation alarmante : après l'énorme publicité pour inciter les
15 000 enseignants dans les salles de classe présentement, seulement 39
pour cent se sont avérés de leur droit de vote. Pourquoi?
En conclusion, chers membres de ce
comité, j'aimerais tout simplement faire la recommandation suivante :
laissez tomber en troisième lecture ce Projet de loi 45 qui vise à repousser à
jamais une partie importante de la population électorale. Je suis loin d'être
expert en ce qui concerne le régime de pension. Il y a plusieurs bonnes
recommandations dans le rapport, mais celle sur l'indexation n'est ni juste ni équitable.
Une indexation limitée à deux tiers du coût de la vie n'est pas un pas dans la
bonne direction.
Et enfin, retournez à la table de discussion et négociez une entente qui
est juste pour tous et chacun. Vous le devez aux milliers de femmes et d'hommes
qui sont à la retraite et qui ont travaillé tellement envers la jeunesse.
Permettez les trois partenaires dans cette discussion, la MTS, la RTAM et la
province d'arriver ensemble à des solutions qui seront justes et à long terme.
Il n'est pas juste d'exclure 11 000 membres de la Manitoba Teachers' Society qui sont d'anciens éducateurs.
Je tiens enfin à remercier les responsables de ce comité législatif qui
m'ont permis de faire ma présentation en français. C'est important et apprécié
de tous les membres du chapitre francophone des enseignants à la retraite, les
Éducateurs et éducatrices manitobains retraités, les ÉMR.
Merci.
Translation
–on condition that the financial markets are performing
sufficiently. The Doer government does not have the moral right to implement the recommendations of the Sale report through
Bill 45, particularly concerning indexation.
Another alarming observation: after the enormous
publicity urging the 15,000 teachers currently in the classrooms to vote, only
39 percent availed themselves of their right to vote. Why?
In conclusion, members of the committee, I simply would
like to make this recommendation: at third reading, abandon Bill 45, which will
forever alienate a significant portion of the electorate. I am far from being an
expert on pensions. There are several good recommendations in the Sale report,
but the one on indexation is neither fair nor equitable.
Lastly, go back to the discussion table and negotiate an
agreement that is fair to all. You owe this to the thousands of men and women
who are retired and who worked tirelessly for young people. Allow the three
partners in this discussion, MTS, RTAM and the Province, together to come up
with solutions that are fair and that will be for the long term. It is not fair
to exclude 11,000 members of the Manitoba Teachers Society who are former
teachers.
Finally, I want to thank those in charge of this
legislative committee who have allowed me to make my presentation in French.
It's important and it's appreciated by all the members of the French chapter of
the Retired Teachers Association, the ÉMR.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Merci,
monsieur. We do have a little bit of time left for questions.
Mr. Schuler: Well, thank you very much. Mr.
Chairperson, it's not up to you to hand out time; that's by agreement, but I do
have some questions and that is my right at committee.
Merci, Monsieur Gagnon, for your time for coming here and
certainly a lot of passion. You know what, you leave me a little bit
distressed. I mean, I listened to what you had to say and, you know, one of the
things you mentioned is the denying of benefits, those who have paid increasing
amounts and many other things that you've said and very passionate and with
great credibility.
But you do give us sort of
that branch of hope when you say, you know, let's put this aside and negotiate
a fair approach. Do you feel that is the right way to go and what could you
give to the committee that perhaps could encourage members opposite, the
government members, that there is another option of dealing with this? You
know, I quoted Winston Churchill who said, it's better to jaw-jaw than war-war.
Should we be trying to find some kind of a mediation approach through this
rather than the kinds of things that we've been hearing over the last two
nights? Can you give us a little bit of reflection?
Again,
merci, for your coming out to committee.
Mr.
Gagnon: Mon seul
commentaire serait le suivant, et puis c'est réiterer
un peu ce que les gens avant moi ont dit, abandonnons le Projet de loi 45.
Retournons à la table de discussion, négocions une entente qui est juste et
équitable avec les trois partenaires. Et les trois partenaires c'est
L'association des enseignants à la retraite, c'est la Manitoba Teachers' Society et c'est la province du Manitoba par le
biais du ministère de l'Éducation, par le biais du ministre de l'Éducation.
Et si ma présentation ce soir en a brassé quelques-uns, tant mieux, c'était ça
l'intention.
Translation
My only comment would be this,
and it reiterates somewhat what other people before me have said. Let's abandon
Bill 45. Let's go back to the discussion table and let's negotiate an agreement
that will be fair and equitable with all three partners. And the three partners
are the Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba, the Manitoba Teachers'
Society and the Province of Manitoba through the Department of Education
through the Minister of Education.
And if my presentation tonight
shook any of you up, well, that's good; that's what I intended.
Mr. Lamoureux: One quick
question is that if you were the Minister of Education and you had these two
professional organizations at odds, would you still move ahead with the legislation
or would you try to force some sort of an agreement before bringing in
legislation if you were the minister?
Mr. Gagnon: J'ai siégé pendant plusieurs années à un
comité de négociation. J'ai siégé à un moment donné à titre de commissaire
d'école et j'ai déjà siégé à titre d'éducateur. À chaque fois qu'on se
rencontrait pour négocier l'entente salariale, il y avait des différences
d'opinion. Il y avait des prises de position qui était dures, mais à la fin de
la journée on arrivait à des compromis et on arrivait à une entente. J'ose
espérer qu'on peut arriver au même genre d'entente en ce qui concerne ce fameux
projet de loi.
Translation
I sat for several years on a negotiation committee. At
one point I sat as a school trustee and I have also sat as an educator.
Each time we met for salary negotiations, there were differences of opinion.
Strong positions were taken, but at the end of the day, we came up with
compromises and reached an agreement. I dare hope that we can arrive at the
same kind of agreement about this bill.
Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, the
committee thanks you for your time.
Mr. Gagnon: Merci beaucoup.
* (19:00)
Mr. Chairperson: One quick notice, the translator who
is working very hard tonight had kindly offered to translate our English into
French for anyone who needed it. I've noticed no one so far has used the
device. I'm wondering if perhaps we can ask the translators to provide that
service, should anyone request it. They're doing a tough job already tonight.
So the service is available,
but we'll just let the translators know we appreciate their efforts. English to
French at the moment doesn't seem to be required by the presenters tonight, so
we can use that as necessary. Thank you. [interjection] They translated
that for me, I'm told.
Our next rural and
Francophone presenter, No. 109, Denis Clément.
Mr. Denis Clément (Private
Citizen): Bonsoir.
Mr. Chairperson: Bonsoir, monsieur.
Mr.
Clément: Bonsoir,
Monsieur le Président. Bonsoir, membres du comité. Bonsoir, Monsieur le
Ministre.
Je voulais dire à la traductrice ou au traducteur qu'à un moment donné je vais
peut-être dévier de mon discours. Okay.
Monsieur le Président, membres du comité, je vous remercie à l'avance pour
m'avoir permis de faire une présentation devant vous. Si je le fais, c'est avec
la conviction que vous prendrez le temps de réfléchir avant de procéder avec le
Projet de loi 45.
Je m'appelle Denis Clément, natif d'Aubigny, un petit village au sud de
Winnipeg sur les bords de la rivière Rouge. J'y habite depuis bientôt 22 ans.
Mon épouse Lorraine et moi avons quatre enfants dont une qui enseigne
présentement à l'École Héritage à Saint-Pierre-Jolys.
J'ai complété mes études universitaires au Collège de Saint-Boniface et aussi à
l'Université du Manitoba détenant une Maîtrise en administration scolaire. En
1976, après sept années de travail dans le domaine de signalisation pour les
chemins de fer nationaux du Canada, je débute ma carrière d'enseignant au
secondaire au Collège Saint-Jean-Baptiste.
J'ai occupé une variété de postes dont enseignant au secondaire, conceptualisateur de programmes pour le ministère,
directeur de l'école élémentaire de Saint-Pierre-Jolys
et directeur adjoint au Collège Louis-Riel pendant neuf ans.
J'ai donné 30 ans de ma vie au service des jeunes et j'en suis très fier.
Pendant mes 30 années en éducation, j'ai fait beaucoup de bénévolat. Je fus
président de la Société franco-manitobaine en 1988 et 1989 et j'ai travaillé
fort pour faire respecter les droits des Franco-Manitobains. D'ailleurs j'ai
rencontré ces gens, et je les ai rencontrés pour justement ces droits-là. J'ai
même rencontré la personne qui n'est pas encore pendue ici dans cette belle
grande salle, okay, pour faire respecter les droits
des Franco-Manitobains. Certains ont été très accueillants. Certains autres,
pas trop, mais je laisse ça à mon bon collègue Roger Legal
d'écrire l'histoire de tout ça.
Je continue. J'ai œuvré aussi 18 ans au sein des caisses populaires du Manitoba
et je fus président de la Caisse Provencher qui avait un actif à cette
époque-là de 130 millions de dollars. Présentement, je suis président du centre
communautaire et culturel d'Aubigny. Ce que je tiens à vous dire, ma
communauté, mes gens, je les ai à cœur.
Si je suis ici aujourd'hui, c'est que j'ai toujours lutté pour les conditions
de travail qui répondent aux besoins des enseignants et, à mon avis, lorsqu'on
parle de retraite, je crois que nos membres sont en droit de se retirer avec
dignité, sans avoir à craindre que l'inflation va ronger leurs pensions
jusqu'au point d'être proche du seuil de la pauvreté ou même jusqu'à perdre une
bonne partie du pouvoir d'achat.
Je me suis impliqué beaucoup au niveau local de la MTS. J'ai siégé au-delà de
vingt années, d'ailleurs c'est vingt-trois ans, sur les comités de négociation
pour l'Association des enseignants de la Division scolaire de la rivière Rouge
et pour l'Association des enseignants et des enseignantes de la Division
scolaire franco-manitobaine. Pour ce qui est de la création de la Division
scolaire franco-manitobaine, nous avons travaillé à la fusion de neuf ententes
collectives et à la mise en œuvre de la première entente collective pour cette
division scolaire.
Alors, si on est capable de fusionner neuf ententes collectives pour une
division scolaire, on est capable, sûrement, seulement deux ou trois organismes
et le gouvernement, d'en faire autant pour les pensions, à mon avis.
Permettez-moi de souligner que j'ai été
président de l'Association des enseignantes et enseignants de la Division
scolaire de la rivière Rouge en plus de siéger à divers sous-comités. J'ai
participé à certaines activités de la MTS telles les Brandon seminars. Je pense que j'ai passé huit mois de ma vie à
Brandon pour ça pendant de nombreuses années pour mieux contribuer au
mieux-être de mes collègues. Ce sont d'innombrables heures voire même des
semaines et des mois au service gratuit des miens pour que ceux et celles qui
sont éducatrices et éducateurs, aient des conditions de travail à la hauteur de
cette profession. Alors, la Manitoba Teachers'
Society, je la tiens à cœur; et en retour, je m'attends à rien de moins que cet
appui de la part de la MTS pour tous ceux et celles qui sont ou seront à la
retraite quand c'est ça qu'ils méritent.
Aujourd'hui je continue d'œuvrer dans un
domaine qui m'a toujours passionné. Depuis novembre 2006, je suis un
commissaire d'école représentant la région sud à la Commission scolaire
franco-manitobaine. Encore, je me préoccupe des conditions de tous les
intervenants en éducation car c'est seulement en répondant aux besoins de
chacune et chacun, que nous pourrons assurer le projet éducatif de nos jeunes.
Donc comme vous pouvez voir, chers membres
du comité législatif, je possède une expérience variée en éducation et ce à
tous les niveaux, qui me permet de vous parler et de partager avec vous mes
graves préoccupations concernant certaines des recommandations du rapport Sale
qui feront partie du Projet de loi 45.
Comme éducateur, j'ai toujours cru et appuyé
à 100 pour cent les recommandations des cadres administratifs de la MTS en ce
qui a trait aux augmentations de nos cotisations professionnelles. Il va de soi
que ces augmentations nous garantissaient un régime de pension suffisant
lorsque viendrait le temps de la retraite. Nous avions compris que l'indexation
en fonction du coût de la vie faisait partie de l'équation afin de s'assurer
que mon régime de pension serait protégé des ravages de l'inflation. D'ailleurs
presque 16,6 pour cent de mes contributions mensuelles devait aller dans un
compte de redressement justement pour nous donner une augmentation en fonction
du coût de la vie à chaque année. Ça c'est vital pour tout régime de pension
surtout lorsque le coût de la vie frise les trois pour cent. De fait je crois
que le coût de la vie est vraiment supérieur à trois pour cent. Allez à Foodland, allez à Safeway, allez à Super Valu, et puis
on dirait que les prix ont augmenté plus que trois pour cent. Je ne le sais pas
mais avec 100 $ tu peux sortir du magasin avec tout dans les deux mains. C'est
ça que c'est.
Mais imaginons maintenant un régime de
pension ou de rente mensuelle s'il ne tient pas compte du coût de la vie ou en
prend compte partiellement. Il n'est pas rare de voir un enseignant à la
retraite pour une période de 20 ans et même plus. Selon ce que vous proposez,
il serait possible qu'une personne retraitée, même si on lui donne 66 pour cent
du coût de la vie, pourrait, selon la situation économique du jour, perdre 10,
20 pour cent ou même beaucoup plus de son pouvoir d'achat. Ça c'est beaucoup,
ça. Si quelqu'un vit jusqu'à 95 ans il va falloir manger beaucoup de hot-dog.
Cela équivaut à la perte de la qualité de vie pour beaucoup de retraités, des
problèmes financiers. Imaginons un régime que vous nous proposez qui paye
seulement selon l'habileté du gouvernement à pouvoir payer. Ce projet de loi
est fautif à cet égard car il nous propose notre propre perdition et vous nous
demandez de vous appuyer. C'est un non-sens et nos gens à la retraite ne
méritent pas ce traitement.
Je vois d'autres problèmes surgir à cause de
ce genre de décision. À long terme, les jeunes dynamiques ne voudront pas se
lancer en éducation à cause que l'on peut leur enlever des acquis et ils iront
là ou il y aura de meilleures perspectives de travail. Les plans de pension
représentent un incitatif pour les gens qui se cherchent un travail. D'autre
part, les gens vont devoir enseigner plus longtemps, ce qui privera l'entrée
dans la profession d'une jeunesse dynamique et enthousiaste. Ce que nous
désirons, est un COLA ou une formule très proche à cela et non seulement pour
une période de dix ans mais pour la vie des retraités. Je pense que c'est ça
qu'on veut. Un COLA pour la vie des retraités parce que moi j'ai l'intention de
vivre longtemps encore, mais pas quémander. Je suis à la retraite depuis un peu
plus de deux ans.
* (19:10)
Ce qui m'attriste est de constater que la Manitoba Teachers'
Society, l'Association des enseignants et enseignantes francophones du Manitoba
et votre gouvernement qui ensemble sont censés défendre les aspirations des
enseignants, faites le contraire. Ce que vous nous donnez comme message, c'est
merci pour le beau travail, mais à chaque année, vous allez devoir accepter un
peu moins. J'aurais compris si les gens qui seraient du patronat ou d'un parti
politique de droite avait proposé ce projet de loi. Mais non, les renards sont
dans notre poulailler et les renards sont nos propres gens. Souvenez-vous qu'un
jour vous aussi serez à la retraite et il se peut qu'on vous coupe ce qu'on
vous avait promis.
Translation
Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
Mr. Minister. I wanted to tell the translator that I may deviate from my speech
at some point. Okay.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, first, I thank
you for the opportunity to make a presentation before you. I'm doing so with
the conviction that you will take the time to think before proceeding with Bill
45.
I am Denis Clément. I'm a native of Aubigny, a small town
south of Winnipeg on the Red River. I have lived there for nearly 22 years. My
wife Lorraine and I have four children, one of whom is currently teaching at
École Héritage in St. Pierre Jolys.
I completed my university studies at St. Boniface College, also at the
University of Manitoba, with a Masters in Educational Administration. In 1976,
after working seven years for CN in the area of signals, I began my career as a
secondary school teacher at Collège Saint-Jean-Baptiste. I held a variety of
positions including secondary school teacher, program designer for the
department, principal of the elementary school at St. Pierre Jolys, and vice-principal of Collège Louis-Riel for nine
years. I gave 30 years of my life to the service of young people, and I'm very
proud of that.
During my 30 years in education, I did a great deal of
volunteer work. I was the president of the Société franco-manitobaine in 1988
and 1989, and I worked hard to ensure respect for the rights of
Franco-Manitobans. I met with these people about those rights. I even met the
person whose portrait has not yet been hung here in this big, beautiful room in
order to ensure respect for the rights of Franco-Manitobans. Some of these
people were very welcoming, others not so much, but I will let my good
colleague, Roger Legal, describe the full history of that. I'll continue.
I also worked for 18 years with the caisses
populaires. I was president of the Provencher caisse
which at the time had assets of $130 million. Currently, I am president of
the Aubigny cultural and community centre. I want you to know that my
community and my people really matter to me.
I'm here today because I've always struggled for working
conditions that met the needs of teachers, and, in my opinion, when you talk
about retirement, I think that our members are entitled to retire with dignity
without having to fear that inflation is going to eat away at their pensions to
the point where they're near the poverty line or even to the point where they
lose a good portion of their purchasing power. I've participated a lot at the
local level with MTS. I sat for over 20 years, 23 years in fact, on negotiation
committees for the Red River School Division teachers' association and the
Franco-Manitoban School Division teachers' association.
With regard to the creation of the Franco-Manitoban
School Division, we worked on the merging of nine collective agreements and the
implementation of the first collective agreement for that school division. So
if it's possible to merge nine collective agreements within one school
division, surely we can, with just two or three organizations and the
government, do as much in the area of pensions, in my opinion.
I might mention that I was president of the Red River
School Division teachers' association in addition to sitting on various
subcommittees. I participated in certain MTS activities such as the Brandon
seminars. I think I spent eight months of my life in Brandon over many years
for that to better contribute to the welfare of my colleagues, innumerable
hours, even weeks and months of unpaid service so that our educators would have
working conditions worthy of this profession. So the Manitoba Teachers' Society
matters to me and I expect nothing less than the same level of support from MTS
for those who are or will be retired, when that is what they deserve.
Today I continue to work in an area that has always been
of great interest to me. Since November of 2006, I am a school trustee
representing the southern region of the Franco-Manitoban School Board. Once
again I am concerned with conditions for all intervenors
in education because it is only by meeting the needs of all that we will be
able to ensure the education of our young people. So as you can see, members of
the legislative committee, I have varied education experience at all levels
which enables me to speak to you and share with you my serious concerns about
certain of the recommendations of the Sale report which will become part of
Bill 45.
As an educator, I've always believed in and supported 100
percent the recommendations of the MTS administration concerning increases in
our professional contributions. It goes without saying that these increases
guaranteed us a sufficient pension when our retirement came. We understood that
indexation to the cost of living was part of the equation and this would
protect the pension plan from the ravages of inflation. Moreover, about 16.6
percent of my monthly contributions were to go to an adjustment account
precisely to give us an increase based on cost of living each year. That is
vital for any pension system, especially when the cost of living is going up by
around 3 percent. In fact, I believe the cost-of-living increase is actually
higher than 3 percent. Go to Foodland, go to Super Valu
or Safeway, and it seems prices have risen by more than 3 percent. I don't
know, but with $100, you can leave the store carrying everything in your two
hands. That's the way it is.
Now let's imagine a pension system in
which monthly payments don't take account of the cost of living or only
partially take account of it. It's not unusual to see a teacher who's been
retired for 20 years or even longer. Based on what you are proposing, it is
possible that the retired person, even if this person receives 66 percent of
the cost of living could, depending on the economic situation of the day, lose
10 percent, 20 percent or even much more of his or her buying power. That's a
lot. If people live to be 95 years old, they are going to have to eat a lot of
hot dogs. This is the equivalent of a loss of quality of life for many retired
people, and financial problems.
Let's imagine a system you propose which pays only based
on the ability of the government to pay. This bill is faulty in this respect
because it proposes our own perdition to us and we are asked to support it.
This is nonsense, our retirees do not deserve that treatment. I foresee other
problems arising because of this decision. In the long term, young, energetic
people are not going to go into education because they can lose what they have
gained, and they'll go where the work prospects are better.
Pension plans represent an incentive for people who are looking
for work. Also, people are going to have to teach longer, which will prevent
young, dynamic people from entering the profession. What we want is a COLA or a
formula that is very similar to that, not just for a period of 10 years but for
the lifetime of retirees. I think that's what we want, a COLA for the lifetime
of the retired persons because I, personally, intend to live a long time yet,
but not to go begging. I have been retired for a little over two years.
It saddens me to see that the Manitoba Teachers' Society,
the Francophone teachers' association of Manitoba and your government, which
together are supposed to defend the aspirations of teachers, are doing the
opposite. The message you are giving us is, thanks for the good work but each
year you'll have to accept a little less.
I would have understood if
people from management or a right-wing political party had proposed this bill,
but, no, the foxes are in our henhouse and the foxes are our own people.
Remember, you too will be retired someday and could be cut off from what was
promised to you.
Mr. Chairperson: Monsieur, une minute. You have one minute.
Mr. Clément: Okay.
Pour moi ce n'est pas tellement un problème. Je suis encore en mesure de
travailler à MacDo et à A&W
ou conduire une machine agricole pour les fermiers du coin pour renflouer mes
coffres. Mais vous les présidents de la MTS et des AÉFM
et de ce comité, allez-vous pouvoir faire cela et êtes-vous en train de vous
organiser pour recevoir plus de pension tout en vous assurant que les retraités
actuels en reçoivent moins? Quelle anomalie et quel manque de justice sociale.
Maintenant très brièvement sur les
plébiscites. Un plébiscite qui demande à la majorité de voter sur les droits de
la minorité est un non-sens, et une injustice sociale et morale. Nous les
Francophones du Canada et du Manitoba savons ça et pouvons vous en dire long
sur ça.
Maintenant il y a une question qui
s'impose et c'est la question suivante, et puis je vais arrêter là. Quelle est
la formule qui protège en grande partie les pensions de nos retraités tout en
donnant aux gens du gouvernement et de TRAF une certaine flexibilité d'action?
C'est ça la question, et je crois qu'il y a une ouverture de la part de RTAM et
de votre gouvernement et de MTS pour en arriver à ca.
Merci pour le
temps que vous m'avez accordé. Thank you very much. Merci.
Translation
For me this isn't such a problem.
I'm still able to work at McDonald's or A&W or drive
agricultural machinery to make ends meet, but as for you presidents of MTS and AÉFM and members of this committee, will
you be able to do that and are you organizing so as to receive higher
pensions while making sure current retirees receive less? What an anomaly and
what a lack of social justice.
Now, very briefly on plebiscites. A plebiscite that asks
the majority to vote on the rights of the minority is meaningless, and is a
social and moral injustice. We Francophones of Canada and Manitoba know that
and could tell you about it at length.
Now, there's one question that must be asked, and then I
will stop there. What is the formula that largely protects the pensions of our
retirees while providing government and TRAF a certain flexibility of action? That
is the question, and I believe there is openness on the part of RTAM, your
government and MTS to get there.
Thank you for the time that you have given me. Thank you
very much. Merci.
Mr. Chairperson: Merci,
monsieur.
Questions for the presenter?
Mr. Schuler: Yes. Merci,
Monsieur Clénent–
Mr.
Clément: Clément.
Il y a un erreur sur la feuille. [There's an error on the sheet.]
There's a typographical error. A lot of people think I'm a former quarterback
for the Winnipeg Blue Bombers and things like that, but I'm not that guy. If I
was, I wouldn't be here.
Mr. Schuler: Thank you for pointing out the
typographical error. We apologize for that.
Monsieur, you came up with a term, and we've heard it before, but it's the
right one. It's, how does a person retire with dignity? That's, I think, the
goal that RTAM and retired teachers are looking for, and you brought up that
great analogy.
I
mean, sitting on one side are probably some of the brightest, best negotiators.
As a former school trustee, I went up against some of the negotiators from MTS,
and they're good; they're bright; they're outstanding negotiators, I know,
maybe not the individuals there right now. On the retired teachers' side are
probably also individuals that I would have negotiated with, or our board did,
and outstanding negotiators. All of you, whether you're active or retired
teachers, are our brightest that our province has. So I sit here and I wonder,
how have we come to this? We have the best and the brightest, and here we sit,
in the middle of summer, till midnight.
Reflect for us. Take a moment
and give this committee some of your wisdom and knowledge. Lay it out for us
very clearly, and please do it in the language of your heritage, of your
background. Please do it in French and with clarity. Give us some of your
wisdom where you would like to see this committee go forward, and I look
forward to hearing your comments.
Mr. Clément: Well, I'm going
to say this in one way. I know these people who are here. Many of them I know.
And these people, if they've got time, they dedicate many hours to their
communities. If you would ask for a show of hands of the people here who do
some volunteer work–let's do it. How many of you do?
Now if they don't have to
fend for money–
Mr. Chairperson: Monsieur,
sorry, just for the purposes of Hansard, if you could speak into the
microphone. Repeat what you were saying; that would be fine.
Mr. Clément: I said, please raise your hands, all
those who do volunteer work here; please, right now, and I will raise my two
hands. People who don't have to fend for their money, this province gets it
back a hundredfold. They get it back. So you invest in them; you get it back
one way in taxes and things like that. They buy things. You know, it's as
simple as that. If people don't have dollars to purchase things, they won't. So
what suffers is the economy. The economy, if the wealth is shared, things
happen. If it's not, things will not happen. It's as simple as that. Give these
people the chance to keep their earning power. They're not asking to become
millionaires. They just don't want to be eating wieners and beans three meals a
day.
It's not a problem for me.
Like I told you, I can drive a combine, I can drive a tractor, I can go work at
A&W, I can do contract work, but sooner or later
I won't be able to do that because in 20 years from now, and my purchasing
power has gone down the tubes, what can I do? Is that clear?
Mr. Schuler: Thank you for that incredibly passionate
response to my question. Is this a French community thing? I mean, the passion
is just refreshing, by the way. I love it. We certainly appreciate your example
today.
You've done negotiations.
There's a room full of negotiators. I feel like I'm a minority here, a former
school trustee. All of you at some point in time would have been involved in
negotiations. Is there not a way to negotiate our way to something that
everybody would walk away and feel that they won in this one, that they got
something that they were looking for?
Mr. Clément: Oui, il s'agit de s'asseoir avec nous et puis
avec tous les intervenants, MTS, et le gouvernement parce que le gouvernement
joue un rôle important. Ça prend des sous, ça prend des sous. C'est indéniable.
Mais comme je vous ai dit toute à l'heure, les sous vont revenir parce que les
gens réinvestissent dans la province. Alors moi je crois que si le gouvernement
fournit des sous et puis s'il y a de l'imagination de la part de tous nous
autres, ont va arriver avec de quoi. Mais seulement que moi je ne siège pas au
comité de négo. J'en ai pas toutes les données, alors c'est très difficile pour
moi de dire comment vous devez négocier quand je n'ai pas toutes les données.
Mais ça vous demande de vous aider et
puis j'en connais des personnes là-dedans très capables d'aider. On va être là
et puis on va faire de bonnes suggestions. Et puis on ne veut pas aussi mettre
le gouvernement en banqueroute. Je ne pense pas que c'est notre but. Si on met
le gouvernement en banqueroute c'est bon à rien non plus.
Translation
Yes. You need to sit down with
us and with all parties concerned, MTS, and the government, because the
government plays an important role. It takes money; it takes money. That's undeniable,
but as I said before, the money will come back because people reinvest in the
province. So I think that if the government provides the money and all the rest
of us use some imagination, we will arrive at something. But I don't sit on the
negotiation committee. I don't have all the data so it's very difficult for me
to say how you should negotiate when I don't have all the data. But you need to
help each other; I know people who are very capable at this who can assist you,
who will be there to give you good suggestions. And we don't want to bankrupt
the government. I don't think that's our goal. Making the government bankrupt
will get us nowhere either.
Mr. Chairperson: Merci beaucoup, Mr. Clément.
Mr.
Clément: Bienvenue.
Mr. Chairperson: For the committee's information, for
our next presenter we have been informed that speaker No. 22, Jean M. Taillefer, is, in fact, a rural presenter so we will call
him up next. So, No. 22, Jean Taillefer.
Mr. Jean M. Taillefer
(Private Citizen): Merci.
Mr. Chairperson: Merci,
monsieur. I see you have written copies. Excellent. The staff will distribute
that to committee members.
Mr. Taillefer: Well, I
added a few things.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for that. You
may begin.
Mr. Taillefer: Okay. Members
of the committee, Monsieur le
Ministre, collègues, before I get into my
presentation, I would just like to have a small preamble.
To place my presentation in
context, I would like to indicate that I was a teacher in two school divisions
for eight years during the late '60s and early '70s. During this period, I was president of the Seine River
Teachers' Association. In 1976, I was hired as a consultant by the Department
of Education.
Pendant 25 ans comme fonctionnaire j'ai
choisi de continuer à cotiser au plan de pension de TRAF en solidarité avec mes
collègues enseignants. Maintenant je me vois pénalisé ainsi que plusieurs
collègues du ministère de l'Éducation qui ont pris cette même décision.
En 1978, à l'époque ou j'ai fait ce choix, et je dis bien que c'était un choix,
on m'a clairement indiqué que la pension TRAF était indexée au coût de la vie
et qu'elle le serait à l'avenir. Maintenant pour des raisons administratives,
je le dis bien, et politiques, Tim Sale propose de changer les règlements et le
gouvernement veut donner suite à ces recommandations malsaines. J'ai un peu
honte d'avoir appuyé le gouvernement au pouvoir pendant de nombreuses années.
Le changement proposé, je veux vous donner une analogie, le changement proposé
est semblable à un arbitre qui dirait aux joueurs à la fin du match de hockey
que seulement trois des cinq buts qu'ils ont marqués vont compter parce que les
règlements ont été changés durant le match et que maintenant les buts marqués
par les défenseurs ne sont plus acceptables. Vous voyez l'absurdité de cette
situation. C'est
seulement un jeu. Mais dans le cas de notre pension, des gens ont pris des
décisions à portée légale, et je dis bien légale, après avoir reçu de
l'information du plan de pension TRAF et de la MTS.
* (19:20)
Ainsi les changements proposés viennent contredire les déclarations émises par
ces deux organismes lorsque j'ai pris ma décision de demeurer avec TRAF plutôt
que de choisir le plan du gouvernement manitobain, superannuation.
Les propositions inacceptables de Tim Sale, plutôt–excusez, les propositions
mettent fin de façon arbitraire à un contrat entre TRAF et moi ainsi que
plusieurs autres personnes qui ont continué de payer dans ce plan en solidarité
avec leurs confrères enseignants. Si on avait su que le gouvernement manitobain
n'avait aucune intention de tenir parole–et je dis gouvernement manitobain, je
parle du gouvernement manitobain dans son sens large–n'avait aucune intention
de tenir parole, nous aurions sans doute choisi un autre plan de pension. Nous
aimerions vérifier nos options légales, mais c'est très coûteux. Nous
préférerions que ce gouvernement reprenne ses sens et procède à trouver un
moyen de tenir sa parole.
Les seuls résultats, si la trahison se réalise, seraient de voir de nos anciens
enseignants vivre dans la misère et aussi de voir plusieurs enseignants à la
retraite qui ont appuyé le parti des syndicats dans le passé ne plus le faire à
l'avenir.
Rappelez-vous M. Doer et collègues que nous aurons beaucoup plus de temps
disponible lors de la prochaine campagne électorale, ayant moins d'argent à
dépenser sur des nécessités bien méritées.
Merci beaucoup de votre attention.
Translation
For 25 years as a civil servant I chose to continue to contribute
to the TRAF pension plan in solidarity with my teacher colleagues. Now, I find
myself penalized as do a number of my colleagues from the Department of
Education who made the same decision as I did.
In 1978, at the time when I made that choice–and I am
emphasizing that it was a choice–it was clearly indicated to me that the TRAF
pension was indexed to the cost of living and would be in the future. Now, for
administrative, I emphasize, and political reasons, Tim Sale is proposing to
change the rules and the government wants to follow through on these unhealthy
recommendations. I am rather ashamed of having supported the government in
power for many years. The change that is proposed–and I'd like to provide an
analogy–the change proposed is similar to a referee saying to the players at
the end of a hockey game that only three of the five goals scored are going to
count, because the rules were changed during the game and now the goals scored
by the defence will no longer be acceptable. You can see the absurdity of that
situation, but that's just a game. In the case of our pension, people made
decisions having legal effect, and I'm emphasizing legal, after having received
information from the TRAF pension fund and from MTS. So, the changes proposed
contradict the statements issued by these two organizations at the time that I
made my decision to remain with TRAF rather than choosing the government of
Manitoba superannuation fund. The unacceptable proposals by Tim Sale,
rather–pardon me, the proposals arbitrarily terminate a contract between TRAF
and me and many other people who continued to pay into this plan in solidarity
with their teaching colleagues. Had we known that the government of Manitoba
had no intention of keeping its word–and I'm referring to the government of
Manitoba in the broad sense–had we known that they were not going to keep their
word, we would doubtless have chosen another pension plan.
We would like to look into our legal options, but that is
very expensive. We would prefer that this government return to its senses and
proceed to find a way to keep its word. The sole result, if the betrayal
occurs, will be that many former teachers will be living in hardship. Also many
retired teachers who supported the union party in the past will no longer do so
in the future. Remember, Mr. Doer and colleagues, that we are going to have a
great deal more free time during the next election campaign, with less money to
spend on well-deserved necessities.
Thank you very much for listening.
English
Do you have any questions?
Mr. Chairperson: Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Taillefer.
Questions?
Mr. Schuler: Merci, Monsieur Taillefer.
Interesting analogy with hockey, and then you mentioned: But hockey is a game,
this is life. And there is a big difference between having a hockey goal denied
and affecting a lot of lives.
You've said that there has to
be a way for government to keep its word. We've heard that quite a bit from a
lot of individuals, whether it was tacit or overt or whatever, but it was
basically conveyed to them that COLA was there, whether it was the full or a
part of, but that there was a certain guarantee. You have a lot of experience.
Share some of that experience, perhaps, with this committee, with the minister
who's at the head of table. There are senior civil servants here. How would you
like to see this proceeded with to get us out of what is clearly a mess? How
would you like to see us proceed?
Mr. Taillefer:
Merci. I just want to say one thing. In my situation,
I had a choice. I had a choice, and I made a decision based on information that
was given to me, which I feel is the equivalent of a contract. I just wanted to
make this thing straight.
The second point: I have also
taught at le Collège
universitaire de Saint-Boniface, which has a plan which is the
University of Manitoba plan. In this case, it's a defined contribution plan.
What I find interesting about the defined contribution plan rather than the
defined benefit plan is that the moment the employee puts one dollar, the
government or the institution or the company puts a dollar, and at the end of
my time as an employee, I will get the full amount that I put in, and the
company or the government has put in. In the case of this situation, it has not
happened. Government has not put a dollar for a dollar. The City has, the
government has not. Let me tell you, you want to rectify the situation, start
putting a dollar for every dollar that teachers put in their pension fund.
Okay? [interjection]
Mr. Chairperson: Order. I must remind members of the
public, passion and freedom of speech is celebrated here. Presenters, however,
are the only ones who can present directly to committee. We do not allow
applause or booing or any other commentary in the Chamber, and the same rules
apply here in committee. I appreciate that not everyone knows that, but for
your information we would ask to refrain from that for the rest of this
evening.
I
have Mr. Borotsik, and then the honourable minister.
Mr. Borotsik: Again, thank
you for your most passionate speech. I was most interested in your comment, and
you touched on it just recently in your little discussion point. You had a
choice between a civil service pension and the TRAF pension. You decided to pay
more on an annual basis for the PAA account and you said, and I quote, I think,
that you were told that there would be a COLA clause included in that pension.
I have a question. Who told you that? Did you have a pension adviser? Did you
go to the MTS and have them tell you or was it government at that time?
Mr. Taillefer: At that time
it was government. It was the human resources people who brought me and told me
exactly my options, and it was the human resource people at the Department of
Education who gave me the information based on information, no doubt, coming
from the MTS and TRAF.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Borotsik, quickly if you
can.
Mr. Borotsik: One just supplemental question. Did
they suggest at that time that your better alternative would be the full COLA
advantage in the TRAF pension or did they give you the choice? Or did they
actually sort of guide you towards that COLA pension?
Mr. Taillefer: At that
time, I was given the highlights of both plans. Superannuation did have certain
advantages that TRAF didn't have. For instance, well I won't go into detail,
but there were advantages for Superannuation. There were advantages as the COLA
clause was one advantage that TRAF had, but I would say they were about
equivalent. But most of the teachers, for a number of reasons, like I said, in
solidarity with their fellow teachers, also they might be returning to the
profession in 10 years so it was easier to stay with TRAF for a number of
reasons. But what was clear at that time, we were told, and I'm not the only
one because there was at least 20 other people in the Department of Education
who chose that, it was clear that the COLA was to be extended until the end
of–the lights went out in my case.
Mr. Chairperson: Honourable Minister Bjornson,
briefly, again, if you can.
Hon. Peter Bjornson (Minister of Education, Citizenship
and Youth): Thank you, Mr. Taillefer, for your
presentation.
I just wanted to clarify
something when you talked about the fact that government hadn't put in a dollar
for every dollar that the pension contributors had put in. Certainly I recall
being on the floor of the MTS AGM and advocating for the unfunded liability to
be addressed by government. That was one of the priorities that we had had back
in the 1990's that had not been done until we came
into government, and we came up with a plan to address that liability.
Certainly that was part of our $1.5 billion in addition to over
$300 million that has already gone into that fund to address that unfunded
liability. There was potential for that unfunded liability to go to over
$8 billion with the current amount of retirees and the pension liability
that was anticipated. So I just wanted to clarify that. We have indeed been
contributing to the pension fund for the main account.
* (19:30)
Mr. Chairperson: Monsieur Taillefer,
if you wish.
Mr. Taillefer: Oui. Could I just react? I totally agree and I applaud you
for that, but what I would suggest is that $1.5 billion goes directly into
the fund and that 16 percent of it go into PAA. Then I would really applaud you
tremendously.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Monsieur Taillefer. Time has expired. Order. Thank you.
By
my read of the list, Monsieur Taillefer was the last
rural Francophone presenter that we had. I would like to ask the room, though,
is there anyone else both wishing to speak in French and from rural Manitoba
who has not yet had a chance to do so? Seeing no hands, we will revert to page
1 and begin–[interjection] Order. Just for the benefit of all committee
members, we have translation involved and side conversations really need to be
kept to a minimum tonight, and I think we all know why. We are dealing in two
official languages and they each need to be respected. Keep the side
conversations to a minimum.
Our next presenter,
potentially French and rural Manitoba, or, sorry, in urban Winnipeg now, Norma Lacroix-Gagné. I see you have copies of your presentation.
Thank you for that.
Madame Lacroix-Gagné,
you may begin when you are ready.
Ms. Norma Lacroix-Gagné (Éducatrices et Éducateurs manitobains à la retraite): You'll have to excuse, my
voice is not very good tonight.
Monsieur le Ministre, mesdames et
messieurs du comité, comme vous voyez, je suis bilingue et ma présentation
écrite sous vos yeux est dans les deux langues officielles du Canada et du
Manitoba.
J'aimerais d'abord vous parler un peu de ma vie.
J'ai enseigné 23 ans et je suis restée à
la maison 14 ans pour mes quatre enfants. Mon mari, Eugène Lacroix, a compris
l'importance des REER et, pendant des années, a emprunté l'argent nécessaire
pour acheter le maximum des REER permis pour nous deux. Malheureusement, Eugène
est décédé avant de pouvoir bénéficier de ses REER. J'en ai hérité et cela me
permet aujourd'hui une vie plus confortable dans ma retraite. Croyez-moi que je
vivrais une pauvre retraite si je devais me fier seulement sur ma pension
d'enseignante.
Je dois ajouter que ce fut une occasion
heureuse pour moi quand j'ai rencontré Antoine Gagné, un enseignant à la
retraite, lors d'une rencontre de la section francophone de la RTAM. Je suis
maintenant présidente de la section francophone de la RTAM, les Éducatrices et
Éducateurs manitobains à la retraite, que l'on dit ÉMR.
Je représente ce soir les 179 personnes dans notre section, dont 96 sont
membres actifs.
Je ne comprends pas, et les enseignants
francophones retraités de la section des ÉMR ne
comprennent pas, pourquoi vous avez choisi de prendre position contre les
éducatrices et éducateurs de cette province, ceux et celles qui ont dédié leur
vie à vous et vos enfants, et aux enfants du Manitoba.
Je veux parler ce soir au sujet du
plébiscite. Vous savez que seulement 44 pour cent des personnes ont voté. La
question se pose : avec une échéance si courte, est-ce que le gouvernement
voulait vraiment une réponse honnête à sa question?
Savez-vous que de nombreux enseignants à
la retraite n'ont pas reçu un bulletin de vote? Que d'autres enseignants
retraités n'ont pas pu retourner leur bulletin de vote, faute de temps? J'en
connais qui étaient absents : soit en visite chez des amis; à garder leurs
petits-enfants; ou à donner un coup de main dans la famille. Voilà ce que les
personnes retraitées font. Comment devaient-ils savoir qu'un plébiscite
arriverait dans la boîte à lettres pendant leur absence? Et que l'échéance
serait dépassée avant leur retour?
Malgré tout ça, 48 pour cent de tous les
votes ont été pour le "Non." Ce qui veut dire qu'un bon nombre
d'enseignants actifs ont dû voter non, eux aussi. Imaginez quel aurait été le
pourcentage pour le "Non" si tous les enseignants à la retraite
avaient eu la chance de faire compter leur vote. Quel faux pas politique.
Je veux parler aussi du Projet de loi 45, la Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
pension de retraite des enseignants. Le paragraphe 10 modifie la description de
l'élément I de la formule pour déterminer le redressement de la pension
mensuelle. Les calculs seront faits selon deux formules, a) et b), et l'on
devra choisir le calcul qui est inférieur, de zéro à 5,33 pour cent, mais sans
dépasser les deux tiers de l'indice des prix à la consommation, et cela
seulement s'il y a des fonds dans le compte de redressement des pensions.
Le minimum offert est exactement ce que nous recevons depuis quelques années,
tel le 0,71 pour cent pour 2008; et le maximum offert est un tiers de moins que
ce que la loi actuelle nous permet d'espérer. Oui, vous nous enlevez même
l'espoir que notre dollar pourrait maintenir sa valeur.
Le Projet de loi 45 semble nous donner, pour les prochains dix ans, deux tiers
de l'augmentation en pourcentage de l'indice canadien des prix à la
consommation, mais avec un maximum de 5,33 pour cent. Est-ce que cela nous est
garanti? Non. Car le gouvernement se garde le droit de nous donner le minimum
de zéro pour cent.
Après 2018, le gouvernement semble offrir aux enseignants retraités, y inclus
ceux et celles ici ce soir qui seront encore vivants en dix ans, la pleine
augmentation en pourcentage de l'indice canadien des prix à la consommation.
Est-ce que cela est une garantie? Encore, non, car le gouvernement continue à se
garder le droit de donner le minimum de zéro pour cent.
Dans la section 9 du Projet de loi 45, les paragraphes 49(4) et (5) modifient
le financement du compte de redressement des pensions pour que ce compte puisse
recevoir de meilleurs taux d'intérêt. Bravo pour cette excellente initiative,
car le financement actuel est plutôt piteux. Cela aurait dû être en vigueur
depuis longtemps déjà.
C'est dommage que la section 9 détermine aussi que le surplus dans le compte de
redressement ne pourra être utilisé pour améliorer notre COLA avant 2018, que
ce surplus sera utilisé seulement après 2017. Cela exclut notre génération de
ce bénéfice. Pourquoi? Est-ce cela que vous appelez la justice?
Le paragraphe 49(6.1) indique que les intérêts accumulés dans le compte de
redressement peuvent être inclus pour déterminer le pourcentage du COLA, mais
toujours selon la formule injuste de zéro à 66 pour cent de l'indice canadien
des prix à la consommation du paragraphe 10(7). Je vous demande, si les intérets le permettent, pourquoi limiter l'augmentation en
fonction du coût de la vie à 66 pour cent?
Je veux parler en dernier lieu du paragraphe 52, qui nomme le gouvernement et
la MTS comme membres du groupe de travail sur la Caisse de retraite des
enseignants. Nous n'y voyons aucune mention de la RTAM. Et pourtant la RTAM,
c'est nous, les enseignants à la retraite de notre province. Oui, c'est notre
plan de pension et c'est notre argent. C'est nous qui avons travaillé toutes
ces années. C'est nous qui avons placé notre argent dans le plan de pension.
Pourquoi n'avons-nous pas le droit à une représentation égale dans ce groupe de
travail consultatif? Pourquoi ne pouvons-nous pas participer aux décisions
prises dans l'administration de notre propre argent?
Si vous étiez dans notre position, est-ce que vous accepteriez ça? N'avez-vous
pas honte de nous dicter cela?
* (19:40)
Pour ajouter l'insulte à l'injustice,
vous nous coupez le droit de parole jusqu'en 2018. Et nous qui avons 70 ans ou
plus, est-ce que nous serons encore capables de parler en dix ans? Est-ce cela
la justice de notre gouvernement?
L'honorable Ministre de l'Éducation (M.
Bjornson) dit vouloir améliorer notre plan de pension. Alors, s'il vous plaît,
Monsieur le Ministre, nous vous prions de vraiment l'améliorer. Nous vous
prions de réfléchir au Projet de loi 45, d'avoir le courage de le réviser et
d'y apporter les amendements et les solutions à long terme qui rendront justice
aux enseignants. C'est possible, avec cran et bonne volonté, d'en faire un
projet de loi qui sera bon pour les enseignants retraités actuels et futurs.
Je vous remercie de votre attention.
Translation
Mr. Minister, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, as
you can see, I am bilingual and my written presentation in front of you is in
both official languages of Canada and of Manitoba.
I would like to start by talking a little about my
life.
I taught for 23 years and stayed home for 14 years for my
four children. My husband, Eugène Lacroix,
understood the importance of RRSPs and for years borrowed the necessary money
to buy the maximum RRSP permitted for us both. Unfortunately, Eugène died before being able to benefit from his RRSPs. I
inherited them and this allows me a more comfortable retirement today. Believe
me, I would be living poorly in retirement if I had to rely only on my
teacher's pension.
I must add that it was a happy occasion for me when
I met Antoine Gagné, a retired teacher, at a meeting of the French
chapter of RTAM. I am now president of the French chapter of RTAM. That is the Éducateurs manitobains à la
retraite, also known as the ÉMR, and tonight I
represent the 179 persons in our chapter, of whom 96 are active members.
I don't understand, and the retired Francophone teachers
of the ÉMR chapter don't understand, why you have
chosen to take a position against the teachers of this province, those who have
dedicated their lives to you and your children and to the children of Manitoba.
I want to speak tonight about the plebiscite. You know
that only 44 percent of the people voted. The question arises, with such a
short time frame, did the government really want an honest answer to its
question?
Did you know that many retired teachers did not receive a
ballot and that other retired teachers were not able to return their ballot for
lack of time? I know some who were away visiting friends, babysitting their
grandchildren, or giving a helping hand in their families. That's what retired
people do. How were they to know that a plebiscite would arrive in their
mailboxes during their absence and that the deadline would have passed before
they returned home?
In spite of all that, 48 percent
of all votes received said no which means that a good number of active teachers
must also have voted no. Imagine what would have been the percentage for the no
if all retired teachers had had the chance to have their ballots counted. What
a political faux pas.
I also want to speak of Bill 45,
The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act. Section 10 modifies a description of
element 1 in the formula to determine the monthly pension adjustments. The
calculations will be done based on two formulas, a and b. The lower calculation
must be chosen from zero percent to 5.33 percent, but without going higher than
two-thirds of the consumer price index, and then only if there are sufficient
funds in the pension adjustment account. The minimum offered is exactly what we
have been receiving for a few years such as the 0.71 percent for 2008, and the
maximum offered is one-third less than what the current act allows us to hope
for. Yes, you are taking away even the hope that our dollar could maintain its
value.
Bill 45 seems to give us, over the next 10 years, two-thirds
of the percentage increase of the Canadian consumer price index but with a
maximum of 5.33 percent. Is this guaranteed to us? No, because the government
reserves the right to give us the minimum of zero percent.
After 2018, the government seems to offer to retired
teachers, including those who are here tonight who will still be alive in 10
years, the full percentage increase of the Canadian consumer price index. Is
this a guarantee? No, because the government continues to reserve the right to
give the minimum of zero percent.
In section 9 of Bill 45, subsections 49(4) and (5) modify
the financing of the pension adjustment account to enable this account to
receive a better rate of interest. Bravo for this excellent initiative as the
current method of financing is rather pathetic. This should have been in place
a long time ago. It's unfortunate that section 9 also determines that the
surplus in the pension adjustment account cannot be used to improve our COLA
before 2018, that this surplus will only be used after 2017. This excludes our
generation from receiving this benefit. Why? Is this what you call justice?
Subsection 49(6.1) indicates that the interest
accumulated in the adjustment account may be included to determine the
percentage of the COLA, but always according the unfair formula of zero percent
to 66 percent of the Canadian consumer price index as in subsection 10(7). I
ask you, if the interest permits it, why limit the cost of living increase to
66 percent?
Lastly, I want to speak of subsection 52 which names the
government and MTS as members of the Teachers' Pension Task Force. We see no
mention of RTAM, and yet RTAM is we, the retired teachers of our province. Yes,
it is our pension plan and it is our money. We are the ones who worked all
those years. We are the ones who put our money into the pension plan. Why do we
not have the right of equal representation on this task force? Why can we not
participate in the decisions taken in the administration of our own money? If
you were in our position, would you accept this? Aren't you ashamed to dictate
this to us? To add insult to injury, you take away our right to speak until
2018, and for those of us who are 70 years of age and older, will we even be
able to speak in 10 years? Is that our government's justice?
The honourable Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson) says
his aim is to improve our pension plan. Well, then, sir, we ask you truly to
improve it. We ask you to reflect on Bill 45, to have the courage to revise it
and bring the amendments and long-term solutions that will render justice to
teachers. It is possible, with guts and good will, to make a bill that will be
good for current and future retired teachers.
I thank you for your attention.
Mr. Chairperson: Merci beaucoup, Madame Lacroix-Gagné.
Questions?
Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much, Madame Lacroix-Gagné.
You
mentioned in here that we have to have courage to revise Bill 45, and I would
certainly hope there would be the courage around this table, as much courage as
you have to come to committee and make a presentation. We really appreciate it.
You've laid out your presentation in a very credible way, and you've waited a
long time and we appreciate that you're here.
You
raise a lot of good issues in your presentation. As we go through committee,
I'm sure we'll have the opportunity to go through it again. Far be it from
someone like myself to correct you, and you mentioned in one of your things
what a political mistake in regard to the plebiscite. I would say just what a
mistake, never mind political mistake. I mean, what a mistake. Disenfranchising
people is always a mistake, whether it's political or otherwise. It was very
unfortunate. Again, it was non-binding.
You've had a lot of experience in education. You've had a lot of life
experience. Can you give this committee–the minister is here, senior
bureaucrats are here, public servants. Can you give us what you would like to
see happen after these hearings are done. Share with us where you would like to
see us go going forward.
Ms. Lacroix-Gagné:
I think the important thing is to have courage. I think the important thing
is to have an open mind, and for all three parties to take a good look at this
and make sure that it is satisfactory to all three parties.
Mr. Lamoureux: First, I must compliment you on your
presentation. In 18 years, I don't think I've ever had a presentation where
it's transcribed in both English and French, and you even distinguish them in
two different colours which made it easy to follow.
Having said that, as the
president of the French chapter, you make reference that there's just under
180, 179 members. It's a difficult question, but if you give it your best
guesstimate, if you will, in terms of what percentage of that 179 would be your
best guess in terms of actually that would have voted. Do you have any sense of
what it would have been?
Ms. Lacroix-Gagné: This has
not been discussed among our members. I do know a number of them have e‑mailed
me to say, I'm sorry, I was away for two weeks and the whole thing happened
while I was gone.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Lamoureux, a very quick
follow-up.
Mr. Lamoureux: A quick follow-up. Did you ever have
the opportunity to then meet with your membership before the actual people cast
their vote?
Ms. Lacroix-Gagné: I did
not. However, being the Francophone section of RTAM, we are not in one local
area like most others, like all the others. We have people all over the
province. We communicate, primarily, by Internet, and we have newsletters two,
three times a year. Well, actually, it's what I call report from the president.
I just communicate with the members to tell them mostly what's happening with
us. Whenever there's political action necessary, there's a lot of communication
going on. Otherwise, we're a social group and we enjoy each other's company.
Mr. Borotsik: A very short question, no preamble.
Thank you very much for your presentation, Madame Lacroix-Gagné.
You keep mentioning three
organizations: MTS, the government and RTAM. You mentioned in your
presentation, you'd like all three organizations to get together and try to
work this difficulty out. However, I've been told that MTS actually represents
all of the teachers, including the retired teachers. They say that they speak
for RTAM. Do you believe that?
Ms. Lacroix-Gagné:
They like to believe that. Actually, I was an active member of MTS and I was an
active member of the AÉFM, the French section of MTS.
I worked on committees. I represented my school, Neil Campbell in River East,
at MTS local for quite a few years when I was teaching at Neil Campbell School
in the immersion program. It was always interesting. I helped at the AÉFM conferences. I was on that committee. I really felt
like I belonged to them. As a matter of fact, this morning, inadvertently, I
put on the t-shirt that said AÉFM. I looked, and I
said, oh, my goodness. Because we have not heard from these people at all, I
don't know where they're at and they don't seem to want to know where we're at.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your time with us this
evening. Merci beaucoup.
Ms.
Lacroix-Gagné: Bonsoir.
Mr. Chairperson: Bonsoir.
Our next presenter,
Francophone No. 21, Antoine Gagné. Is Antoine Gagné here this evening? Do you have–oh, you have written
copies. Excellent. Thank you.
Mr. Gagné,
you may begin when you are ready.
Mr. Antoine Gagné (Private
Citizen): Monsieur le
Ministre, mesdames et messieurs du comité, bonsoir. Je m'appelle Antoine Gagné,
un citoyen du Manitoba. J’ai grandi dans le village de Saint-Georges, vous le
connaissez peut-être, sur la rivière Winnipeg, près de Powerview et Pine Falls.
Ma première année d'enseignement à 19 ans fut dans la petite école de Mud Falls avec 18 élèves, de la
première à la huitième année. Au fil des années, j’ai étudié pour avoir un Bac
es arts à L'Université d'Alberta en 1967 un Bac en éducation au CUSB et une Maîtrise en éducation au CUSB,
aussi en 1988. J’ai eu une famille–cinq enfants qui sont maintenant
d’excellents citoyens.
J'ai enseigné pour 37 ans. La grande
partie de mon enseignement a été dans la Division scolaire de
Saint-Boniface, maintenant la Division scolaire de Louis-Riel, en terminant ma
carrière dans la DSFM. Par contre, j’ai enseigné 12 ans en dehors du
Manitoba : cinq ans dans les Territoires du Nord-Ouest, cinq ans au
Sénégal, Afrique de l’Ouest et deux ans à Hong Kong. Ensuite, j’ai
contribué une énorme somme pour payer les douze ans de contributions qui
manquaient pour combler ma pension. Je suis à la retraite depuis 1995.
Madam Vice-Chairperson
in the Chair
Je suis ici ce soir pour vous demander comment le gouvernement du Manitoba a pu
commettre de si graves erreurs depuis le gouvernement de Ed Schreyer, et quand
je suis rentré j'ai bien vu l'honorable Ed Schreyer; et vous demande de
donner justice aux enseignants à la retraite.
En 1977, le
gouvernement de M. Schreyer nous a donné un bon plan de pension. Depuis
lors, le gouvernement et la MTS nous ont assurés que nous avions le
meilleur plan de pension possible et que nous aurions une bonne retraite.
Pourtant depuis 1995 la valeur d’achat de mon dollar a baissé à 88,9 pour cent.
Et le futur, comme vous le savez, ne promet pas de s'améliorer.
* (19:50)
Quand j'étais enseignant actif, un bon montant de mon salaire mensuel allait
vers ma pension. Les rapports et les chiffres me disaient que 16,6 pour cent–et ça je l'ai trouvé dans
The Teachers' Pensions Act–de
ce montant allait dans un compte de redressement des pensions pour m'assurer
une pleine augmentation annuelle selon l'indice canadien des prix à la
consommation. Donc, seulement 83,4 pour cent de ma contribution allait vers ma
pension de base. J'ai sacrifié ma pension de base pour avoir le bénéfice d'un
plein COLA. Ce n'est pas arrivé. Depuis quelques années déjà, je reçois zéro et
une fraction en pourcentage de l'indice canadien des prix à la consommation
comme augmentation annuelle. Par exemple, cette année j'ai reçu 0,71 de l'IPC, et je continue à vivre avec une pension de base à 83,4
pour cent de mes contributions.
Maintenant j'apprends que le gouvernement veut réduire le maximum possible du
COLA de 100 pour cent à 66 pour me mettre en ligne avec les retraités civils.
Ne savez-vous pas que les employés civils ont contribué seulement 10,2 pour
cent de leur pension vers un compte de redressement des pensions? Ça je l'ai
tiré de superannuation report 2008. Ne savez-vous pas
que les employés civils ont gardé 89,8 pour cent pour leur pension de base?
Comment se fait-il que le compte de redressement des employés civils a les
fonds nécessaires pour leur donner une augmentation annuelle de 66 pour cent de
l'indice canadien des prix à la consommation?
Alors, Monsieur le Ministre, où est la justice dans tout cela?
Je demande au gouvernement de trouver une solution à long terme au problème du
compte de redressement pour assurer un meilleur COLA aux enseignants à la
retraite et aux futurs enseignants à la retraite. Merci.
Translation
Mr. Minister, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, good
evening.
My name is Antoine Gagné. I am
a citizen of Manitoba. I grew up in the village of St. George. Maybe you know
that village. It's on the Winnipeg River close to Powerview and Pine Falls.
My first year of teaching, at the age of 19, was in the
little school at Mud Falls with 18 students from grade one to grade eight. Over
the years I studied to get a Bachelor of Arts at the University of Alberta in
1967, a Bachelor of Education at St. Boniface College, then a Master's of
Education at St. Boniface College in 1988. I had a family of five children, who
are now excellent citizens. I taught for 37 years. The majority of my teaching
years were spent in the St. Boniface school division, which is now the Louis
Riel School Division. I finished my career with the DSFM. I also taught 12
years outside of Manitoba; five years in the Northwest Territories, five years
in Senegal, West Africa, and two years in Hong Kong.
Afterwards, I contributed an enormous sum to pay for the
12 years of contributions that were missing to maximize my pension. I have been
retired since 1995.
I am here tonight to ask you how
the government of Manitoba could have made such serious mistakes since the
government of Ed Schreyer, and when I came into this room I saw the Honourable
Ed Schreyer. I ask you to give justice to the teachers who are retired.
In 1977, Mr. Schreyer's
government gave us a good pension plan. Since then the government and the MTS
have assured us that we had the best pension plan possible and that we would
have a good retirement. But since 1995 the purchasing power of my dollar has
decreased to 88.9 percent and the future, as you know, does not promise any improvement.
When I was a teacher, a good portion of my monthly salary went toward my
pension. The reports and the numbers I was given informed me that 16.6 percent
of this amount–and I found this in The Teachers' Pensions Act–was going into a
pension adjustment account to ensure me a full annual increase based on the
Canadian CPI. So only 83.4 percent of my contribution was going toward my basic
pension. I sacrificed my basic pension so that I would have the benefit of a
full COLA. This did not happen.
For some years already, I have received zero and a
fraction of the percentage of the CPI as an annual increase. For example, this
year I received 0.71 percent of the CPI. I continue to live on a basic pension
that is 83.4 percent of my contributions. Now I learn that the government wants
to decrease the maximum possible COLA from 100 percent to 66 percent to put me
in line with civil service retirees. Do you not know that civil servants only
contributed 10.2 percent of their pension toward a pension adjustment account?
I got this from the 2008 superannuation report. Do you not know that civil
servants retained 89.8 percent for their basic pension? How is it that the
civil service pension adjustment account has the necessary funds to give an
annual increase of 66 percent of the CPI? Where is the justice in all that, Mr.
Minister?
I am asking the government to find a long-term solution
to the problem with the pension adjustment account in order to ensure a better
COLA for retired teachers and future retired teachers. Thank you.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you.
Questions for the presenter?
Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much, Monsieur Gagné,
merci.
Again, you raise an issue
that I've certainly picked up on, and I know most members of the committee if
not all have, and that is sort of the impression that was given to retired
teachers. I'm quoting you here: Reports given were to assure me. And I think
that's what we are hearing consistently throughout yesterday and today, that
there was an assurance given to active teachers at that time that there would
be, like you said, one of the best pensions, and that there would be a cost of
living.
Now you've heard a lot over
the last couple of hours and if you were here yesterday. From your experience,
your life experience, you've travelled abroad, you've obviously collected a lot
of experience, where do you think we should go from here? You mentioned in your
presentation that the minister should be looking for a long-term solution? What
would you like to see part of that long-term solution? Give the committee some
help.
Mr. Gagné:
Continue your talks with the three parties. In September, however, something
has to happen. You should defeat that, troisième
lecture [third reading]. Well, not to lose hope and try to get something
that we'll be proud to give our children. Thank you.
Mr. Borotsik: A couple of things. You had mentioned,
Mr. Gagné, that you had bought back 12 years of your
pension at a substantial amount, and I can appreciate that when you are buying
back that amount of pension.
When you bought that back,
you sat down with advisers. They told you how much it was going to cost to buy
back. That gave you some idea as to what your defined benefit would be at the
end of your teaching career. When you did that, was COLA ever mentioned? Did
they talk about the CPI and the possibility of having a COLA clause at that
point?
Mr. Gagné: No, that was in
1973 that I bought back and, no, I had no mention of COLA. All I know is that I
paid a good amount at the bank for many years.
Mr. Borotsik: You mentioned what you would like to
see happen is that all three parties, and we continually put RTAM in there as
one of the major components which they are; 11,000 retired teachers, in my
opinion, is a fairly major component. You would like to sit down and talk about
alternatives, as I understand.
One of those alternatives, I
assume, is looking at the numbers and looking at what the PAA account is, how
much money it's going to generate with respect to the new investment
alternatives that you have under this act.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
Is it your opinion that you
and your members of RTAM would consider something less than 100 percent,
perhaps a guarantee of something less than that 100 percent?
Mr. Gagné: I'm just one member
and, personally, 100 percent is what we need. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Merci beaucoup.
Mr. Gagné:
Merci.
Mr. Chairperson: Our next
presenter, No. 23, Hélène McCarthy. [interjection] Could you please just
say your name for the record.
Ms. Lacroix-Gagné: I'm Norma Lacroix-Gagné. I received a phone call
from Hélène just before I left. She said she phoned Rick and she's ill tonight
and cannot be here.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Thank you
very much for that. I've been informed by the Clerk we have now written copies
for all committee members. Is it the will of the committee to accept this for
the official Hansard record? [Agreed] Thank you very much. Hélène
McCarthy's submission will now be considered a written submission and she can
be taken from the list.
Number
24, Monsieur Albert Dubé. Albert Dubé?
Seeing no one, he will be dropped to the bottom of the list.
Number 29, Denis Bisson. Denis Bisson? Bonsoir, monsieur.
Mr. Denis Bisson (Private
Citizen): Bonsoir.
Mr. Chairperson: Excellent,
I see you have written copies. Thank you very much for that. Monsieur Bisson, you may begin when you're ready.
Mr. Denis
Bisson: Okay.
Chers membres du comité, je vous remercie d'avoir accepté de nous écouter
ce soir. Je me présente
devant vous ce soir en toute solidarité avec mon association des enseignants et
enseignantes à la retraite, la RTAM. Mon épouse et moi, sommes tous les
deux à la retraite et sommes membres de RTAM.
Nous sommes d'accord avec plusieurs des recommandations du rapport Sale.
Par contre nous ne sommes pas d'accord avec les trois recommandations
suivantes :
Premièrement, que nous soyons limités à 67 pour cent du montant du
coût de la vie.
Deuxièmement, que les augmentations au coût de la vie seront limitées
aux fonds disponibles dans le compte de redressement des pensions.
Troisièmement, que le débat au sujet des fonds disponibles dans le
compte de redressement sera impossible pour une période de 10 ans.
Je ne sais pas, j'espère être en aussi bonne santé dans 10 ans que je
suis maintenant. Je ne suis pas certain.
Pour ce qui en est du 67 pour cent du coût de la vie, nous avions une
entente avec le gouvernement depuis 1977. J'ai entendu d'autres chiffres, en 1975,
et puis pour moi c'était en 1977 qu'on a fait un accord qu'on allait donner
notre argent. Pourquoi le gouvernement veut-il
changer cela sans l'accord des enseignants et enseignantes à la retraite?
Est-ce que c'est par peur que les fonds dans le compte de redressement soient
insuffisants? Pourquoi le gouvernement n'ajoute-t-il pas des sommes dans ce
compte? Pour le troisième point que j'ai soulevé, nous croyons que 10 ans sans
possibilité de retour est très long.
* (20:00)
Dans le rapport Sale, demandé par le gouvernement, il y a de bonnes
recommandations avec lesquelles nous sommes en accord. Que nous puissions
bénéficier des intérêts accrus du compte de redressement des pensions est très
bien, à notre avis. Nous sommes aussi en accord avec les moyennes de 3 ans des
intérêts reçues.
Nous croyons que le gouvernement a déjà fait des pas importants dans la bonne
direction de quatre façons : premièrement, en mettant 1,5 milliards
dans le fonds de pension; deuxièmement, en augmentant la contribution des
enseignants et enseignantes par 1,1 pour cent; troisièmement, en mettant le
même montant d'argent que les nouveaux enseignants et nouvelles enseignantes;
quatrièmement, en nommant un représentant des enseignants et enseignantes à la
retraite au comité de TRAF.
Nous avions confiance que ce gouvernement allait compléter le travail
commencé. Manque-t-il de courage afin de bien terminer son travail? Nous ne
sommes pas la seule province que a été confrontée avec ce problème. Pourtant,
selon notre source d'information, chaque gouvernement provincial a trouvé une
solution acceptable. Nous avons un gouvernement qui veut que justice soit faite
pour tous les travaillants et travaillantes.
Nous sommes dans une période de prospérité dans notre pays. Il y a un
bon retour pour les investissements, et, entre parenthèses, mon aviseur financier et plusieurs aviseurs
financiers disent toujours que la moyenne c'est huit pour cent de rendement, si
c'est bien investi.
Translation
Members of the committee, I want to thank you for
agreeing to listen to us tonight. I am here tonight in solidarity with my
association of retired teachers, the RTAM. My wife and I are both retired and
are members of RTAM. We agree with several of the recommendations of the Sale
report, but we are not in agreement with the three following recommendations:
first of all, that we be limited to 67 percent of COLA; secondly, that the
increases in COLA be limited to funds available in the pension adjustment
account; thirdly, that there be no possibility of debate about the funds
available in the pension adjustment account for a period of 10 years. I don't
know; I really hope to be in as good health in 10 years as I am right now, but
that's not certain.
But as for the 67 percent of COLA, we had had an
agreement with the government since 1977. I have heard other numbers like 1975,
but for me it was 1977 when we made an agreement that they would give us the
money. Why does the government want to change that without the agreement of the
teachers who are retired? Is it out of fear that the funds in the pension
adjustment account will be insufficient? Why doesn't the government add money
to this account?
As for the third point that I raised, we think that 10
years without any possibility of revisiting it is a very long time. In the Sale
report requested by the government, there are some very good recommendations
and we agree with those. For example, that we be able to benefit from the
accrued interest of the pension adjustment account is very good, in our
opinion. We also agree with the three-year averaging on interest received.
We believe that the government has already taken
important steps in the right direction in four respects : First of all, by
putting 1.5 billion dollars in the pension fund; secondly, by increasing
teachers' contributions by 1.1 percent; thirdly, by putting in the same amount
of money as new teachers; fourthly, by appointing a retired teachers
representative to the TRAF committee. We were confident that this government
would complete the work that had been started. Does it lack the courage to
finish the work?
We are not the only province that has had to face this
problem. However, according to our source of information, each provincial
government has found an acceptable solution. We have a government that wants
fairness for all workers. We are in a period of prosperity in our country.
There's a good return on investments, and by the way, my financial advisor and
many other advisors always say that the average return is 8 percent if it's
properly invested.
English
I could repeat that in
English because I suppose that's not translated.
An Honourable Member: It's translated.
Mr. Denis
Bisson: Okay.
Il y a eu un bon retour pour les investissements. Pourquoi les
enseignants et enseignantes ne peuvent-ils pas bénéficier de cette période de
croissance? Nous croyons qu'il est possible que les changements souhaités par
les enseignants et enseignantes soient faites avant que le projet de loi soit
présenté en Chambre, en troisième lecture, c'est-à-dire.
Je veux partir d'ici ce soir avec optimisme. J'espère après avoir
entendu plusieurs d'entre nous qu'il y aura des changements apportés au Projet
de loi 45. Je compte sur vous pour le faire. J'ose espérer que les enseignants
et enseignantes pourront trouver un appui des membres de ce gouvernement.
Merci beaucoup.
Translation
There has been a good return on investments. Why can't
the teachers benefit from this period of growth? We believe that it is possible
for those changes desired by the teachers to be made before Bill 45 returns to
the House for third reading.
I want to leave tonight with optimism. I hope that after
you have heard many of us, changes will be made to Bill 45. I'm counting on you
to do that. I dare hope that teachers will be able to find support from the
members of this government.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairperson: Merci
beaucoup, Monsieur Bisson.
Questions?
Mr. Schuler: Well, thank you very much, Monsieur Bisson. Merci.
I appreciate the fact that
you have come to committee and made the presentation, and you ended off on a
very positive note. You said you have optimism. You have optimism that the
government will finish the job, and, again, I think it's very clear this is not
something that's been created in the last six months or eight years. It's been
a wave that's been coming at us for some time and here we are.
I've asked many other
presenters and I will ask you this as well. Clearly, there has to be some kind
of a negotiation. Clearly, there has to be some kind of a compromise to move
forward, or the government can proceed with Bill 45 and chips lay where they
may and that's it.
However, if they were to
decide to go back and say, okay, listen, maybe there's room for compromise,
what would you like to see and how would you suggest the minister and the
committee proceed, because eventually we'll go line by line. There'll be
amendments brought forward or whatever.
How would you like to see us
proceed, that all parties, professional organization–I've spoken about MTS and,
as a trustee, I've negotiated against them. They're magnificent negotiators, as
are you. How would you like to see this proceed?
Mr. Denis
Bisson: Well, I'd like to see
125 percent for the cost of living, but I know that's impossible so I think
that I would accept that part, the 100 percent, and then look at what's in the
PAA. Is it well invested? I'd heard five years ago a member of TRAF say, we're
heading for trouble, five years ago approximately. I don't know if I should
mention the name but maybe I should. I think Tom Ulrich had said–I think it's
five years–that the PAA account was in trouble.
If the negotiations haven't
happened yet, they should happen before the third reading. The three have to
get together in my opinion; otherwise, 10 years, a lot of us will not be here,
as other members mentioned, or it will be impossible for us to sit down and
discuss this.
Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no
further questions, the committee thanks you for your presentation. Merci beaucoup.
The next name we call is
No. 35, Albert Vermette. Is Albert Vermette here this evening? Seeing no
one, his name will be dropped to the bottom of the list.
The ensuing name,
No. 62, Denise Girouard. Denise Girouard. I hope I'm pronouncing that almost correctly. No
one here. All right, they're on the list, they've just been dropped to the
bottom.
Number 67, Lucien Loh. Bonsoir, monsieur. Thank
you for the written copies of your presentation. Monsieur Loh, you may begin when
you're ready.
Mr. Lucien Loh
(Private Citizen): Monsieur le Président, mesdames et messieurs.
Je prends la liberté de désapprouver le Projet de loi 45, car je m'inquiète du
pouvoir d'achat de ma pension. Le projet de loi limite, pendant 10 ans, 10
longues années, l'augmentation de notre pension à un maximum de deux tiers de
l'augmentation du coût de la vie. Cette limitation n'est pas équitable. Car, en
1977, la province du Manitoba et MTS étaient d'accord, après de longues
négociations, à une majoration jusqu'à un maximum de 100 pour cent en fonction
du coût de la vie. Suite à cet accord, nous, les enseignants, avons contribué à
cette fin plus que les fonctionnaires. Les fonctionnaires ont contribué 10,2
pour cent de leur pension envers l'augmentation du coût de la vie, mais les
enseignants ont contribué 16,6 pour cent de leur pension. En vertu de cet
accord et de cette plus grande contribution de notre part, nous devrions
recevoir jusqu'à 100 pour cent de l'augmentation du coût de la vie.
La pension du Canada et la pension de
vieillesse sont plus généreuses. Si l'on peut être généreux à l'échelon
fédéral, j'espère qu'à l'échelon provincial, on puisse l'être pareillement.
Le soutien pour le plébiscite est de 52 pour
cent pour le oui et 48 pour cent pour le non. La victoire des votes en faveur
est donc bien douteuse.
* (20:10)
Le Projet de loi 45 impose un moratoire de
10 ans pendant lequel on ne peut plus revenir sur cette question. Au début des
années 1980, le taux de l'inflation était de 12 pour cent et plus. À ce moment-là je payais
l'hypothèque à 20 pour cent. Je venais d'acheter une maison à ce moment-là. Si
l'on perd un tiers chaque année, on perd beaucoup en 10 ans. En plus, moi, je
suis un octogénaire. Il y a beaucoup d'enseignants retraités qui sont de cet
âge ou même plus. Cela veut dire que durant notre vie nous ne pourrons plus discuter à nouveau cette
question.
En vue des raisons que je viens de
mentionner, je me permets d'appuyer, non pas le Projet de loi 45, mais la
position qu'a prise l'association des enseignants à la retraite du Manitoba,
Monsieur le Président.
Translation
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I am
taking the liberty of disapproving of Bill 45 because I'm concerned over the purchasing power of
my pension. The bill limits for a 10-year period, 10 long years, the increase
of our pensions to a maximum of two-thirds of the increase in the cost of
living. That limitation is not fair, for in 1977, the province of Manitoba and
MTS agreed after lengthy negotiations on an adjustment up to a maximum of 100
percent of the increase in the cost of living.
As a result of that agreement,
we teachers contributed to that end more than civil servants did. Civil
servants contributed 10.2 percent of their pension toward the cost-of-living
increase, but teachers contributed 16.6 percent of their pension. Under that
agreement and due to this higher contribution on our part, we should receive up
to 100 percent of the cost-of-living increase. Canada Pension and the old age
pension are more generous. If it's possible to be generous at the federal
level, I hope that it also is at the provincial level. Support for the
plebiscite is 52 percent in favour and 48 percent against. The victory of the
votes in favour is therefore quite questionable. Bill 45 imposes a 10-year
moratorium, during which time this issue cannot be revisited.
At the beginning of the 1980s,
the rate of inflation was 12 percent and more. At that time, I was paying a
mortgage of 20 percent. I had just bought a house at that time. If we lose
one-third each year, we lose a great deal over 10 years. Moreover, I am an octogenarian.
There are many retired teachers who are that age or even older, which means
that during our lifetimes, we will no longer be able to discuss this question
again.
In the light of the reasons that I have just mentioned, I
will support not Bill 45, but rather the position that has been taken by the
Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairperson:, Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Loh.
Mr. Schuler: Merci, Monsieur Loh, and we
appreciate the fact that you took the time to come out and present to committee
and you kept yourself very succinct.
I
want to focus on the 10-year moratorium. There seems to have been a lot of
discussion, and it's probably one of the areas that I haven't focussed on
because I felt there were other areas to focus on. Why do you think the
government would put a moratorium? And, just for the record, if the government
in two years wants to go back, the government just has to change the
legislation and we can go back and talk about it. The government has the right
to reverse itself. So it's not as if this is then cast in stone and God puts a
seal on it and then for 10 years nothing can be done. The government can deal
with it, but why do you think the government put a 10-year moratorium on?
Mr. Loh: Il ne faut pas me le demander. Il faut le
demander au gouvernement. C'est le gouvernement qui a imposé 10 ans. Ce n'est
pas moi.
Translation
You shouldn't ask me that. You need to ask the government
that. It is the government that imposed the 10 years, not I.
Mr. Schuler: Well, the problem is they just won't
answer any of the questions. So I have no choice but to ask you, see? We're
sort of like in a quandary here. I mean, I'm just basically asking you to
reflect if you would have some idea why you would think–I mean, they're
certainly not telling us why. What do you think might have precipitated them
putting a 10-year moratorium on discussing it?
Mr. Loh: Encore je répète, il faut demander au
gouvernement. Je ne sais pas pourquoi le gouvernement a imposé 10 ans de
moratoire.
Est-ce que j'ai répondu à votre question,
monsieur?
Translation
Once again, I repeat, you need
to ask the government. I don't know why the government has imposed 10 years of
moratorium.
Have I answered your question,
sir?
Mr. Schuler: It's almost
like sitting in committee with the minister. Thank you. Merci.
Mr. Loh:
Merci beaucoup, monsieur.
Mr. Chairperson: Merci beaucoup, monsieur. Bonsoir.
Our
next presenter, No. 75, Patricia Dubé. Patricia Dubé, here this evening?
Seeing no one, she will be dropped to the bottom of the list.
Our
next Francophone potential presenter, No. 77, Alfred Phaneuf.
Bonsoir, monsieur.
Mr. Alfred Phaneuf
(Private Citizen): Bonsoir.
Mr. Chairperson: I understand
we have written copies of your presentation, so you may begin.
Mr. Phaneuf: Merci.
Chers membres du comité, je viens par la
présente m'inscrire en toute solidarité avec les nombreux enseignants et
enseignantes manitobains à la retraite qui sont en désaccord avec la loi 45 et
qui appuient avec ferveur les membres du comité du RTAM.
Maintenant que vous connaissez ma position, permettez-moi de me présenter. J'ai
dédié 32 années de ma vie à une profession dévouée à l'apprentissage de nos enfants
et de nos jeunes adultes. Comme enseignant, j'ai eu l'occasion d'enseigner les
enfants de la quatrième année jusqu'au Secondaire 4. J'ai vécu
l'expérience des jeunes en difficulté comme orthopédagogue, conseiller en
orientation, enseignant dans une classe avec des élèves en difficulté
d'apprentissage. J'ai aussi passé du temps dans l'administration comme
directeur d'une école rurale de la maternelle à la huitième année, coordinateur
des services spéciaux, directeur général adjoint du personnel divisionnaire et
directeur général adjoint responsable pour les programmes spéciaux. J'ai aussi
enseigné des cours de psychologie d'apprentissage aux étudiants du Collège
universitaire de Saint-Boniface. Maintenant je suis à la retraite et je reçois
ma pension de TRAF.
Comme vous le savez, dans l'administration il y a un certain montant de
politique et des décisions à prendre qui vont avoir un effet sur plusieurs
personnes, surtout au temps des budgets. Mais nos décisions comme administrateurs
avaient toujours à cœur le bien-être de nos enfants et pour cette raison je
vous implore d’avoir à cœur le bien-être des enseignants à la retraite et de ne
pas appuyer la position du gouvernement.
Nous étions un groupe dévoué et maintenant avec la loi, la possibilité
de la loi 45, nous serons un groupe défavorisé. Pouvez-vous me dire qui, avec
deux cents de bon sens, acceptera un contrat de dix ans avec la clause :
Je te payerai deux tiers de ton salaire si j’ai l’argent. Voici ce que la loi
45 nous propose. Pendant des années, 16,6 pour cent des contributions
mensuelles pour notre pension est allé dans le compte de redressement PAA
spécifiquement pour nous donner l'augmentation en fonction du coût de la vie à
chaque année. Vous défalquez sur le montant à payer. Ne pas recevoir notre
juste part est injuste et peut-être même un vol. Vous devez protéger notre
COLA.
Voici d'autres raisons pour appuyer notre COLA :
Il faut suivre l'indice canadien des prix à la consommation. Sans cette
augmentation notre pension est en déficit. Regardez le prix d’essence qui
affecte tous les produits et les activités ayant du transport.
Le COLA des Manitobains en comparaison avec le restant du pays est au
fond du paquet.
Il y a la question de justesse et morale en ce qui concerne les règles du
jeux. Une entente est une entente.
Le rapport Sale qui fait un effort pour résoudre la situation du
gouvernement n’adresse pas les besoins des enseignants à la retraite. Le manque
d’action par le gouvernement qui était conscient du problème, aussi l'absence
d'une garantie de bénéfices pour le futur ne reconnaît pas que les enseignants
ont payé pour ce bénéfice et n'ont rien reçu.
Le plébiscite sur la loi 45 indique que 48 pour cent n'étaient pas
d'accord.
Vous êtes, chers membres du comité, un groupe de la population qui a
gagné. Ceux qui gagnent savent qu'ils ne sont pas infaillibles. Ils assument
leurs faiblesses tout en tirant profit de leurs forces. Faiblesse est pour un
appui à la loi 45 et la force c'est d'être contre la loi 45.
Nous voulons une solution juste et équitable pour les enseignants à la
retraite.
Je vous remercie pour le temps que vous m’avez accordé et j’espère que
vous pouvez donner une suite favorable à nos demandes.
Translation
Thank you.
Members of the committee, I am here to register my total
solidarity with the many retired Manitoba teachers who disagree with Bill 45
and who fervently support the members of the RTAM committee.
Now that you know my position, allow me to introduce
myself. I dedicated 32 years of my life to a profession devoted to teaching our
children and young adults. As a teacher, I had occasion to teach children from
grade four to senior four. I experienced young people in difficulties as a
reading clinician, guidance counsellor, and classroom teacher of students with
learning difficulties. I also spent time in administration as a principal of a
rural K to 8 school, co-ordinator of special services, assistant executive
director of divisional personnel, and assistant executive director responsible
for special programs. I also taught psychology of learning courses to students
of the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface. Now, I am retired and I am
receiving my pension from TRAF.
As you know, in administration there is a certain amount
of politics and decisions to be made that will affect many people, particularly
at the time of budgets. Our decisions as administrators always were concerned
with the well-being of our children, and for that reason I implore you to have
at heart the well-being of retired teachers and not to support the position of
government.
We were a dedicated group,
and now with the possibility of Bill 45, we will become a disadvantaged group.
Can you tell me who, with two grains of sense, would accept a 10-year contract
with a clause saying, I will pay you two-thirds of your salary if I have the
money. That's what Bill 45 is proposing to us. For years, 16.6 percent of our
monthly contributions for our pension went to the pension adjustment account,
specifically to give us the annual cost-of-living increase. You are defaulting
on the amount to be paid. Not to receive our fair share is unjust and, perhaps,
even theft. You must protect our COLA.
Here are other reasons to
support our COLA. We need to follow the Canadian Consumer Price Index. Without
this increase, our pension is in a deficit. Look at the price of gasoline,
which is affecting all products and activities involving transportation.
Manitobans' COLA, in comparison with that of the rest of the country, is at the
bottom of the heap. There is a question of justice and morality with regard to
the rules of the game. An agreement is an agreement.
The Sale report, which
makes an effort to resolve the situation of the government, does not address
the needs of retired teachers. The lack of action by a government that was
aware of the problem, and the absence of a guarantee of benefits for the
future, doesn't recognize that the teachers paid for this benefit and have
received nothing for it.
The plebiscite on Bill 45
indicates that 48 percent did not agree. You the members of this committee, are
a group of the population that won. Those who win know that they are not
infallible. They accept their weaknesses while taking advantage of their
strengths. Weakness is a vote to support Bill 45 and strength lies in voting
against Bill 45. We want a fair and equitable solution for retired teachers.
I thank you for the time that you have given me and I
hope that you can deal favourably with my request.
Mr. Chairperson: Merci
beaucoup, Mr. Phaneuf.
Questions?
Mr. Schuler: Yes, and merci, Monsieur Phaneuf, for
coming to committee and making your presentation. We appreciate it very much.
You made some interesting quotes. I love quoting back things to people after
they've said them. You went from devoted to disadvantaged, and that's quite a
statement to make for individuals who have served our families and our
communities, have made Manitoba and, in fact, Canada as strong as it is through
education, and to go from devoted to disadvantaged is quite a statement.
You also focus in on the 10 years, and it was quite well put that nobody with
two grains of intelligence–of good sense, two grains of good sense would accept
a 10-year deal that says, perhaps, maybe, sort of, we'll give you between zero
and two-thirds cost of living.
Reflect for us on this.
Clearly, it's something that's been coming up a lot in presentations. I asked
the other gentleman, but what would be the rationale for putting in a 10-year
agreement? I'm not asking you to act like the minister. I'm just asking you for
your professional advice. Why, possibly, would a government put a 10-year
moratorium on and somehow expect that everybody would accept it?
* (20:20)
It's something that I've been
grappling with right from day one and it seems to be something that comes up
over and over again. I'm just asking you for a reflection on it, and maybe you
can enlighten the committee on why you think the government would have gone
there.
Mr. Phaneuf: As I
mentioned, a person with not too much capacities could not understand the
reason for 10 years and two-thirds of the wages for–only if they had the money.
I don't understand the reason for it either. I couldn't elaborate more than
that. What we're looking for is a real COLA, not the diet COLA.
Mr. Schuler: You've heard a lot of the questions that
I've asked you for a lot of the answers, where should we be going from here?
Like, where do we go forward from here? I've been in a lot of committees and
I've actually seen ministers stop committee, and anytime the minister wants a
recess, we'd be prepared to give it. By the way, as the opposition, we'd give a
15, 20, two-hour recess. I've actually seen ministers and their staff go out
with groups and settle an issue that had to be settled so that this kind of
stuff wouldn't happen at committee.
What would you like to see
going forward? How are we going to deal with this on a go-forward basis?
Mr. Phaneuf: Well, I hope
the three members, MTS, government and the RTAM could meet and go over the Sale
report because I believe there are some good points in the Sale report. It's
just to review the parts that don't make sense for the people that are retired
and that will be retiring. So, hopefully, they can negotiate together and
review the report and make some drastic changes on the clauses that we do not
agree with.
Mr. Chairperson: Merci beaucoup.
Oh,
Mr. Borotsik?
Mr. Borotsik: I wasn't going to, Mr. Chairman, but I
couldn't pass this up. My colleague keeps asking the question as to why 10
years? As I understand, if there's a surplus in the PAA account over the next
10 years, that surplus stays there, and then in 10 years the account will be
reviewed to see at that time what level of COLA would be paid out. So I would
suggest that this is looking down the road for younger, current teachers that
are already in the system, that perhaps they would receive the full COLA at
that time. If that is the case– and I don't know because, as my colleague from
Springfield has suggested, we're not getting all of the answers from the
minister–do you think that, in fact, is fair, that those teachers now receiving
pension are going to do so at a detriment to look after, perhaps, others that
come after you?
Mr. Phaneuf: I believe what
should be fair is for all teachers that are retired and that will be retiring
to receive the full COLA starting immediately and in 10 years time also.
Mr. Chairperson: Merci beaucoup.
Mr. Phaneuf: Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Bonsoir.
Our next presenter and
potentially our last Francophone presenter tonight, Raymond Bisson.
Just before Monsieur Bisson begins, if there is
anyone else who would like to present en français,
please indicate so to our staff at the front of the room.
Do
you have copies of your presentation? Excellent. Monsieur, you may begin when
you are ready.
Mr. Raymond Bisson (Private Citizen): Honorable ministre, Monsieur le Président,
membres du comité, chers collègues.
Je vais vous faire grâce de mes antécédents sauf pour vous dire que j'ai œuvré
durant de nombreuses années en éducation dans plusieurs postes, soit comme
enseignant, comme conseiller en orientation au ministère de l'Éducation, à la
direction d'école et aussi à titre de directeur général de deux divisions
scolaires. J'ai aussi eu l'occasion de travailler en Europe pendant trois ans
comme représentant d'une division scolaire ici avec le ministère de la Défense
Nationale, et je crois qu'au niveau de ma participation à la communauté franco-manitobaine,
j'ai tenté d'y accorder le mieux que j'avais. J'ai été très impliqué. Je me suis même lancé au niveau
national pour développer, faciliter le développement de la francophonie au
niveau national.
Un dernier brin d'information–
Translation
Honourable Minister, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, dear colleagues, I will spare you the details of my background
except to tell you that I worked many years in education in several positions:
as a teacher, a learning consultant with the Department of Education, a school
principal, and also as the superintendent of two school divisions. I also had
the opportunity to work in Europe for three years as a representative of a
school division here with the Department of National Defence, and I believe that
when it came to participation in the Francophone community of Manitoba, I tried
to give the best that I could. I was very involved. I even contributed at the
national level to facilitating the development of Francophonie nationally.
A last bit of information–
English
–just a little bit of
information to keep you awake tonight wondering where I really come from, where
I was born, and that's to keep you awake after midnight, not before. I was born
in Dunrea, Manitoba. Some of you may not know where
that is.
Membres du comité, je me
présente devant votre comité pour exprimer mon opposition au Projet de loi 45
de la province du Manitoba. Il serait redondant pour moi d'intervenir au sujet
de l'historique et du manque de respect de la part des gouvernements
antécédents et du présent quant aux intentions premières du bien-fondé d'un
projet de loi visant à accorder un régime de pension approprié à un groupe de
professionnels enseignants. N'oublions pas que ce manque de respect et
d'intégrité de la part des gouvernements date d'au-delà d'une trentaine
d'années, et que les retraités ont subi un manque à gagner pour ce même nombre
d'années.
Mes
interventions sont fondées sur deux principes fondamentaux, dont la justice et le
respect, des principes largement énoncés par les gouvernements de nos jours,
des principes avec lesquels les gouvernements de notre province auraient dû et
auraient pu être les chefs de file à respecter, à administrer et surtout à
poser les gestes nécessaires pour que cette entente édicté par la loi
législative de l'époque puisse bénéficier la clientèle visée et non le groupe
redevable, soit les gouvernements de la province.
Il est de toute
évidence que, par des truchements législatifs et administratifs, les intentions
fondamentales et premières du projet de loi ont été écartées au bénéfice des
fonds de réserve des gouvernements. Pour leur part, les retraités, c'est-à-dire
les contribuables, ont été la cible de cette injustice, habilement répartie sur
nombre d'années afin que les gouvernements n'assument aucunement leur pleine
juste part et qu'un plan de pension diminué soit et demeure le fardeau des
retraités. Les chiffres rendent justice à mes revendications.
Mes attentes de
votre comité sont de taille. Votre responsabilité est sans équivoque. Il
incombe de faire les recommandations au gouvernement dans un esprit de justesse
et de justice, et ce, à la lumière des faits de nos revendications et face à
l'impasse créée par un sondage non concluant, qui, pour toutes fins pratiques,
vient brouiller l'évidence des faits. Vos recommandations suite à nos
interventions peuvent servir à établir cet équilibre pour la mise en œuvre d'un
régime d'allocation du coût de la vie, respectueux et conforme aux intentions
premières et ainsi apporter un ordre de parité avec les diverses ententes
collectives en cours du gouvernement provincial.
Le gouvernement
provincial, pour sa part, a une responsabilité encore supérieure afin d'être à
la hauteur de sa tâche en ce qui concerne le respect de l'entente. Si injustice
a eu lieu, il lui incombe d'apporter les rectifications nécessaires et d'offrir
pleine transparence dans un esprit de justesse et de respect.
Les enseignants
retraités, pour leur part, ont respecté leurs obligations vis-à-vis les
responsabilités exigées par leur profession choisie. Ils et elles se sont très
bien acquittés de leurs devoirs de formation de la jeunesse au cours des
décennies. De plus, ils ont respecté la conclusion législative de l'entente
touchant le régime de pension en y apportant leur contribution financière tel
qu'établi dès le départ. Le moindre que l'on puisse s'attendre de nos
représentants élus d'aujourd'hui est de respecter les ententes conclues.
* (20:30)
En sommaire, je me
permets de dire que le gouvernement d'aujourd'hui maintient son imputabilité et
sa crédibilité jusqu'au moment où il refuse de reconnaître et de corriger ses
propres injustices.
Mesdames et messieurs, je vous remercie d'avoir écouté mes commentaires.
Translation
Members of the committee, I am
here before you to express my opposition to Bill 45 of the province of
Manitoba. It would be redundant for me to intervene on the history and the lack
of respect on the part of former governments and of the present one regarding
the original intention of a bill whose aim was to give an appropriate pension
plan to a group of professional teachers.
Let's not forget that this lack of respect and integrity
on the part of governments goes back more than 30 years and retirees have been
subjected to a shortfall for as many years. My interventions are based on two
fundamental principles, those of justice and respect.
Those principles are widely invoked by governments these
days, principles on which the government of our province could and should have
been leaders by respecting them, administering them and, above all, taking the
action needed so that this agreement enacted into the law at the time could
benefit the targeted clientele and not those who are accountable, that is the
government of the province. Obviously, through legislative and administrative
means, the original intent of the bill has been set aside for the benefit of
government reserve funds.
For their part, retirees, that is to say taxpayers, have
been the target of this injustice, cunningly spread over many years so that no
government had to assume its fair share and so that a diminished pension plan
would become and would remain the retirees' burden. The figures clearly support
what I'm saying.
I expect a good deal of your committee. Your
responsibility is unequivocal. It is up to you to provide recommendations to
the government in a spirit of fairness and justice in the light of the facts of
our claims in the face of the impasse created by an inconclusive survey that
for all practical purposes has clouded the factual evidence.
Following our interventions, your recommendations can
serve to establish a balance for the implementation of a COLA that respects and
conforms to the original intentions and brings about parity with the various
collective agreements that are in effect within the provincial government. The
provincial government, for its part, has a still greater responsibility when it
comes to respecting the agreement. If an injustice occurred, the government
must take the necessary corrective measures and provide full transparency in a
spirit of fairness and respect.
Retired teachers have respected the obligations imposed
by their chosen profession. They have carried out their duty to train youth over
the past decades very well. They have also respected the conclusion of the
pension plan agreement by paying their financial contribution as established at
the outset. The least we can expect of our elected representatives today is
that they respect those agreements.
In summary, I want to say that today's government
maintains its accountability and its credibility up to the moment when it
refuses to recognize and to correct its own injustices. Ladies and gentlemen,
thank you for listening to my comments.
Mr. Chairperson: Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Bisson.
Questions.
Mr. Schuler: Monsieur Bisson,
merci, for taking the time in coming out and making a
presentation to this committee. You raise a lot of very important points, and I
have to say, you know, I've listened to you and so many of the others over last
night and today, and I'm actually humbled at the kind of stature of individual
that's come forward. We have individuals that have taught internationally, that
have had impact on lives around the world, and come here. You made it very
clear. It's about showing respect. I'm going to ask you one question, and I'd
like to ask a second one. I take it from what you've seen so far, whether it's
in the legislation, plebiscite, the discussions that have taken place that up
until now, none of that has shown you or what you believe in, respect.
Mr. Raymond
Bisson: Ce n'est pas
transparent. It is not transparent. The information that we have does
not show very clearly that the retirees have been treated the way the intention
of the law has been legislated in the past, originally. and I'll–
Je crois qu'il est très important de signaler
cela. Mes deux principes fondamentaux étaient le respect et aussi la justice
que l'on doit accorder aux intentions premières de cette législation qui a eu
lieu. Je crois qu'on l'a entendu assez souvent ce soir. Je n'étais pas ici hier
soir. Mais je crois qu'on l'a entendu assez souvent ce soir, le mot
injustice–le mot manque de respect, le mot manque de réaliser les intentions premières
d'une entente.
Si je peux continuer une minute. Si quelque chose est brisé on ne peut tarder
pour tenter de le réparer. Je crois qu'être obligé d'avoir des audiences publiques de cette façon et
d'avoir un sondage qui est non concluant, je crois que nous avons et vous avez
devant vous une situation qui n'est pas appropriée pour tout le monde.
Translation
I believe that it is very important to point this out. My
two fundamental principles were respect and justice that must be applied to the
original intent of this legislation. I think that we've heard this quite often
tonight. I wasn't here last night but I think tonight that we have often heard
the term injustice, lack of respect, failure to fulfil the
original intent of an agreement.
If I may continue a minute: If something is broken,
you can't delay in trying to fix it. I think being obliged to hold public
hearings this way and to have a survey that was inconclusive, I think we have,
and you have before you, a situation that is inappropriate for everybody.
English
If
it ain't broken, don't fix it. It's broken. Okay?
Mr. Chairperson: Mr.
Schuler, you've got a supplemental?
Mr. Schuler: Yes. Monsieur,
in front of us, this committee, has an individual, you've worked for DND. You've travelled the world, obviously, an individual
of high standing not just in Manitoba but in Canada and abroad. What just
floors me after all of this is–I'll repeat myself over and over again–I mean,
two eminent organizations, MTS, who I used to negotiate against as a school
trustee, an outstanding professional group of individuals.
You know what? Through all
our negotiations, never personal, always standing up for what they believed in,
for what they believed was right, respect and justice. I look, and I've
listened to a lot of the retired teachers. I've met with the organization.
We've heard you and seen what you've all accomplished. And how did we come to
this? How did we get to this point that we're so far apart? Basically, we're
looking at the same group of people, our best, our brightest. Just reflect on
that. Maybe I'm showing a little bit of frustration, but I can't believe we've
gotten to this point. I will point to the minister and a lack of leadership. I
would be willing, as the lead critic for the opposition, to say let's take half
an hour, and if they want to start negotiations now and have a talk, we'll sit
down. We'll wait for half an hour. We'll give an hour. We've done it before in
other committees, but, my goodness, how did we get to this point?
Mr. Raymond
Bisson: I don't really have an answer for that, but I feel the same
frustration as you do and probably most of the people in this room tonight feel
the very same frustration that you and I feel. How did we get there? We're
there. How do we get out of it? That's the solution we have to find.
Floor Comment: How do we get out?
Mr. Raymond
Bisson: How do we get out? I think we have to sit down. I think it's
been mentioned before tonight that there are three groups. There's MTS. We've
all been members of MTS. We're now members of RTAM, and there's the government.
I challenge the government to show leadership and to bring these parties
together, to sit down with all transparency possible and to say, here is the issue
that we have in front of us. How do we find a solution to this issue? In a very
civilized, understanding, transparent way, how do we do this? And I think the
three groups–and I ask the government to show leadership–will be able to find a
solution that will be acceptable to all three.
So what I ask you,
personally, is to proceed in that direction before anything else is done,
before you go to third reading. Have the people sit down and work it out, iron
it out and fix it.
Mr. Chairperson: Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Bisson. Time
has expired for questions. Bonsoir.
Mr. Raymond Bisson: Merci.
Mr. Chairperson: I will ask one more time, if there
is anyone else here tonight who has not already presented who wishes to do so en français,
now would be the time.
Mr. Borotsik: Mr. Chairperson, just, if I may, to the
Government House Leader (Mr. Chomiak), I have to commend the committee and the
Chairperson and the Clerk for organizing the Francophone delegation to be
allowed here at a specific time to make their positions known in their
language. I think it went extremely well, and it just proves to the fact that
this process of committee hearings can, in fact, be handled in a much more
humane fashion as opposed to having people sit for 30 and 40 hours before making
presentations.
So I would ask that the
Government House Leader and certainly the Opposition House Leader (Mr.
Hawranik) over the next little while use this example as a very positive
example of how, perhaps, logistics in future committees can be handled. So I do
thank you for that.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the honourable member for
those comments.
Given that there are no more
Francophone presenters coming forward, is it the will of the committee to allow
the translators to leave for the evening? [Agreed]
Ms. Howard: I would just add, Mr. Chair, certainly
with our great thanks to the translators. It's not an easy job and I think
they've done a great, great job, an excellent job, and made it able for us to
understand and also able for people to communicate. So, with our thanks, we
send them home and wish them a good night.
Mr. Chairperson: Duly noted, and thank you for those
comments as well.
Floor Comment: Mr. Chairperson, I would like–
Mr. Chairperson: Sorry. Just say your name, please.
Ms.
Lacroix-Gagné:
Norma Lacroix-Gagné.
I would like, on behalf of all the
éducateurs manitobains
and all the Francophone retired teachers, to thank the committee as well. It
was excellent and we thank you from the bottom of our heart.
Mr. Chairperson: And there
we go clapping again. Well, I'll overlook it just this once. [interjection]
The Clerk has just kindly reminded me, people can turn in their headsets as
they leave the room, or else we'll have to call you.
We will now, as per the
committee's previous agreement last night–I say this primarily for anyone who
wasn't here last night, for your benefit–the committee had agreed to hear rural
presenters first, to hear as many of them as we could last night before the
Francophone speeches this evening.
So we will now revert to
rural speakers which we did not complete last night. I have two notes for those
following on the master list. No. 50, Jean Todd: The committee agreed last
night to agree not to see that person's name until tomorrow. They are an
out-of-town presenter, but we are overlooking their name for tonight, as we did
last night.
* (20:40)
Also, No. 68, I have a
note here. You can see there is an asterisk and a cross next to Jacqueline Mireault's name. She was, in fact, called and should have
been dropped to the bottom of the list. It's just a typo. So that person is an
out-of-town presenter who is at the bottom of the list. They should be at
No. 237, if you wish to make note of that. So No. 68 is out-of-town
but was called last night and should be on your sheets tonight as presenter
No. 237.
Proceeding from that point,
the next out-of-town presenter that I have on my list is near the top of page
12, No. 130, Carolyn Lintott. Is Carolyn Lintott with us here this evening? Seeing no one, Carolyn Lintott, calling a third time.
Mr. Schuler: I believe, if you would go back and
check in Hansard, she had herself removed as an out-of-town presenter,
if you remember that. So actually, she should not be dropped, just she should
not have an asterisk next to her name. She was here patiently yesterday, and I
believe it was at the end of the day she said remove the asterisk.
Mr. Chairperson: I've heard confirmation from the
Clerk of that. Just for the official record, is the committee willing to make
an amendment or not see her name this evening? [Agreed] So she has not
been called once and leave is granted. [interjection] Yes, she'll be
called later if we get to it as an in-town presenter if we get that far in the
list tonight. Thank you for that.
So then No. 133 is the next
out-of-town potential presenter, Jean Anderson. Is Jean Anderson here? Seeing
no one, will be dropped to the bottom of the list.
No. 134, Huguette
Rempel. Thank you for being here with us this
evening. You have copies I see. Thank you for that. Ms. Rempel,
you can begin whenever you're ready.
Ms. Huguette Rempel (Private Citizen): Mr. Chairperson, honourable
minister, members of the committee, my name is Huguette
Rempel. I'm here tonight representing the Manitoba
members of Alpha Delta Kappa, which is an international sorority for women
educators. I am former chair of the government's education advisory board, not
the Education Department's advisory board but the government's advisory board,
past president of the River East School Division and, just before I retired,
received a signal honour from the Manitoba Teachers' Society of having been
made a lifetime member, which finds me in a rather unique position tonight in that,
as far as I can tell so far, I'm the only member of MTS to speak against Bill
45.
There have been two
historically irrefutable events that have unfortunately been either denied,
ignored or revised during discussions leading up to this Bill 45. Let me point
them out.
First, when the teachers'
pension plan was first implemented, it was clearly agreed from the outset, and
this goes now way back, that contributions from the government would match
those of the teachers, as most pension plans do. Hence, our teachers' real,
tangible contributions were deposited into the Retirement Allowances Fund where
they could be invested, yield returns on these investments and grow. However,
for the past 40 years, the government's contributions vary unwisely and, as
I'll point out in a moment, by their own admission, never went into the fund,
but simply remained an unfunded liability. That is only a promise that the
funds would be available when needed from general revenues. As an aside, never
showed up in the official budget.
If I were to manage my money
like that when I'm budgeting, I would be forever going to a piggy bank to rely
on covering my expenses. You know what? There's not enough in the piggy bank.
So half of the potential
earnings of the fund could never materialize. The money was not there to yield
any returns and, of course, problems developed with regard to funding the
pension plan. Now the typical measures that were taken to rectify all of this
over the years has been to increase active teachers' contributions and/or to
cut the level of retired teachers' cost-of-living allowance as if the
inevitable shortfall were the teachers' fault. However, given the increase of
numbers of teachers retiring in the last number of years, this has been very
predictably and very much predicted remarkably unsuccessful at resolving the
problem. The problem being that the government's share was an unfunded
liability and, so, we have come to the dire situation we face today.
Look at the Ontario's teachers'
pension plan. There the government's equal share of contributions went directly
into the plan right from the start and, oh, how it grew. Someone, yesterday,
intimated that that plan was in trouble. My brother sat on the board of the
Ontario teachers' pension plan and he assures me that they have many options to
solve that problem and they all come down to lots of money.
Permit me now to quote from
the 2008 Manitoba Budget Address, and I quote: Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the
progress we have made addressing the province's debt, particularly, the
unfunded pension liabilities. Oh, this is the government speaking. Over 40
years ago, the Manitoba government stopped funding the employer's share of the
pensions for teachers, rather than let the pension liability grow unchecked.
Isn't that kind of an admission of an error? It gives the more positive option.
We started making current service pension contributions again this past year,
and we funded 75 percent of the unfunded liability of the teachers' retirement
fund.
All I can say is, way to go
guys. However, what about the money that should have earned over the years?
What about the other 25 percent that we could put into the pension allowance
account? So it sounds good, but you know what? It could be better.
This begs the question, of
course, what of the other 25 percent that could fulfil their legal obligations,
and they are legal? Is there now to be a 10 or more year moratorium on that? Go
figure. You make a mistake for 40 years and then you intend to extend it
another 10. Whoo.
* (20:50)
Second point. With regard to
the pension adjustment or COLA plan, I quote now from page 9, recommendation 3
of the Sale report: The appropriate goal for COLA is two-thirds CPI capped at 8
percent CPI. Indeed, this is what the PAA was designed to provide in the first
place. This will largely mirror the Civil Service Superannuation Plan which
currently provides for COLA up to two-thirds of CPI subject to available
funding.
Now, to put it in the
simplest of terms, this is simply not true. Redundancy there, purposely done.
Back in 1977, the Conservative government wanted The Teachers' Pensions Act to
mirror The Civil Service Superannuation Act, but that was unacceptable to the
Manitoba Teachers' Society for many reasons. I'm sure that, you know, if you're
interested, we could write them down for you, but the matter was resolved as
follows and this is what's important.
Mr. Chairperson: One minute remaining.
Ms. Rempel: MTS agreed to a
higher level of contribution than was being paid by the civil servants whose
COLA was capped at two-thirds in order to provide a full annual COLA. Moreover,
and you heard this before, they agreed to a further trade-off. They undertook
to fund by themselves their own long-term disability plan.
Since 1977, governments in
Manitoba have had a duly negotiated, formal and legal obligation to see that
the COLA commitments are met but which they have not honoured. The Retired
Teachers' Association of Manitoba has been requesting that the original intent
of the Pension Adjustment Account be honoured and that it be sufficiently
funded to accomplish that intent.
We don't want to say the
responsibility for paying Peter belongs to Paul while Nero–
Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Rempel,
I regret to say the 10 minutes and a bit more is past. With leave of the
committee, the remains–
Ms. Rempel: I will just
finish the sentence.
Mr. Chairperson: With leave of the committee, the
remains of your presentation could be accepted into the written record.
Ms. Rempel: You're most
gracious.
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Chair, I'd ask
leave of the committee to allow the presenter to complete her presentation.
There are approximately three short paragraphs left and I'm sure that we could all
benefit from listening to her presentation.
Ms. Howard: I think that would be acceptable given
that the time for her presentation would come out of the question time.
Mr. Chairperson: Agreement of the committee that
additional time for presenting would come out of the time for questions and
answers afterward? [Agreed] Thank you very much, committee members.
Please continue.
Ms. Rempel:
Thank you for your graciousness.
So, typically, when problems
have arisen and they certainly have, the government has intransigently refused
to revisit appropriate funding for the teachers' pension plan. And what
typically happened? Well, active teachers' contributions were increased and/or
retired teachers' cost-of-living allowances were decreased. In other words, the
government has reneged on the contract and teachers have paid extra to save the
day.
I believe we're doing it
again. The inadequate funding recommendations of Bill 45 amount to asking both
active and retired teachers again to bear the brunt of the underfunding of the
teachers' pension fund and the Pension Adjustment Account which is the result
of years of inaction by the government.
An impossible situation? We
don't think so, not this time. Instead of this Bill 45 which comprises an
unacceptable temporary patch job coupled with a 10-year moratorium, let's
continue the discussions together to achieve more significant lump-sum funding
from the government along with a long-term plan to fix the COLA problem. It can
be done, but not with this Bill 45. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. We
have approximately three and a half minutes remaining for questions.
Mr. Schuler: Yes, thank you, Ms. Rempel,
for coming forward. As a former alumni of River East School Division, nice to
see you here. I'm going to go to your last paragraph and you say, let's
continue the discussions together, and then the last sentence, along with the
long-term plan to fix the COLA problem.
Could you reflect for us–and
you've heard a lot of the questions and I'm trying to save time here–how do we
go forward? What kind of ideas do you have that could help us solve this
problem going forward?
Ms. Rempel: I anticipated
the question. My druthers would be abort this bill and start getting some good
facts together with reasonable people, and hey, it can be done. The government
has a huge majority. This may not be possible, unfortunately. The members of
the opposition have to get their act together. We can help you.
Mr. Borotsik: Thank you, Ms. Rempel.
I really appreciated your presentation. You'd indicated that you're a life
member of MTS–
Floor Comment: Yes, I am and I'm proud of it.
Mr. Borotsik: I appreciate that. That takes an awful
lot of effort and a lot of time and a lot of energy on your part.
It used to be, and I'm sure
you'd agree with me, that MTS would stand up for their members against
government, that they did, as a matter of fact, in 1977, not take what was
originally proposed to them. Why is it, in your opinion, right now, MTS is, in
fact, going in concert with government and not standing up for the teachers,
whether it be active or whether they be retired? Why the shift? You were there
when you used to fight government as opposed to consort with government.
Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Rempel,
brief if you can.
Ms. Rempel: Mr. Borotsik, I
have been retired for quite some time. I've been at arm's length with what goes
on although I'm still a member technically. It would be politically very not
expedient for me to start laying blame because then I'd be joining the game,
and I don't like the game. So, I'm sorry, but not only can I not answer your
questions but even in private, I don't think I would try.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your time with us this
evening, Ms. Rempel.
Our next presenter, No. 136, Sherilyn Bambridge. Is Sherilyn Bambridge here this
evening? Will be dropped to the bottom of the list.
Number 138, Doug Kinney. Is
Doug Kinney here this evening? Seeing no one, their name will be dropped to the
bottom of the list. No. 40–
Committee members, bear with
me here. Order. Everyone needs to be able to hear the names. Gentlemen, some of
you were teachers. No. 140, Emile Peloquin. Is Emile Peloquin here this evening? No?
Number 141, Doreen Peloquin. Not seeing anyone, their names will both be
dropped to the bottom of the list.
Number 144, Anne McGregor. Is
Anne McGregor here this evening? Seeing no one, dropped to the bottom of the
list.
Number 147, the Reverend Jane
Bramadat. Calling the Reverend Jane Bramadat. Seeing no one, the reverend's name is dropped to
the bottom of the list.
Number 152, Leonard Dyeck. It might be a typo. It could be Leonard Dyck. [interjection]
Dueck. Of course. Okay, a typo the other way. Leonard
Dueck. Seeing no one, their name will be dropped to
the bottom of the list.
Number 163 is our next
potential rural presenter, Gwen Hogue. Is Gwen Hogue here this evening? Her
name will be dropped to the bottom of the list.
Number 165, James Dewart. No. 165, James Dewart.
Seeing no one, dropped to the bottom of the list.
Number 169, Al Nickel. Mr.
Nickel, thank you for joining us this evening. I see you have copies of your
presentation, excellent. Mr. Nickel, you may begin when you're ready.
* (21:00)
Mr. Al Nickel (Private Citizen): Honourable elected
members of the Province of Manitoba, ladies and gentlemen. Anticipating the
questions at the end of my presentation, I will say at this point that my presentation
does contain a solution, and it also explains how we got where we are. I want
to just, by way of intro, as to who I am, just to say that my wife, Sharon and
I were dedicated, devoted teachers for a combined period of 71 years.
I am very certain that the
shame and embarrassment of the proceedings of this week are not lost on you. We
have here the spectacle of your retired teachers appearing before you during
the evening and late night hours to make a case to gather something that for
their whole careers they believed they had fully paid for. They feel betrayed.
After giving the best and most energetic years of their lives towards the
education of our youth, we find ourselves in this degrading position of having
to persuade you, our elected officials, of our right to a fair COLA. I might
add that most of you are our juniors and were no doubt taught by ourselves. You
are where you are in large measure by the quality of the education that you
received from us. I submit to you that if you were being completely honest you
would have to agree that you were taught and guided by some exemplary teachers.
How can you not feel humiliated and embarrassed by your government's agenda to
deny us our pensions indexed to COLA?
Even
as we sit here there are teachers spending their summers planning how they
might teach your children in a yet better manner just like we did when you were
of school age. We are told that in recent years up to 40 percent of our
starting teachers resign within the first five years. They find the job too
onerous, too demanding, expectations too high. There is something very wrong
with this picture. How many professions can you name whose members bear a
greater responsibility to the next generation or carry a heavier workload or
are more noble and honourable? As you know, the simple matter of conveying
knowledge is minute when you weigh the responsibility of moulding the
character, ensuring emotional maturity, teaching responsibility to the next
generation.
Many of you are or were
teachers. Why then are we here at all? Even to attempt to deny your retired
teachers what is rightfully theirs, they having paid the full price, is very
disgraceful. What have you done in your lifetime that is more demeaning than
this? As your former teachers, we hope this exercise absolutely tops the list
for you. Those of you who were teachers will know that there was a common flaw
within the profession. Most teachers were so preoccupied with their assignments
that there was little attention paid to pensions, pension funds management,
government-shared agreements, et cetera. So, yes, we paid our dues but most of
us paid too little attention to our government-shared pension agreements. Now
your government sees an opportunity to deny its teachers a fair COLA, something
you yourselves as MLAs get. Shame on you.
Now let me explain what is
most scandalous of all. The solution is so incredibly simple. You, Mr.
Bjornson, as Minister of Education, learned upon opening your portfolio that
there was an issue about retired teachers and their COLA. How do you proceed?
You start by educating yourself.
Number (1), call in those MTS
members and civil servants who were involved during negotiations with the
government of the day during the 1980s and 1990s. Call in people like Tom Ulrich, Dick Marshall,
Aubrey Asper, Terry Clifford, others that I can't remember and the civil
servants who they negotiated with. They would give you a history of the matter
complete with documentation. (2) Bring in the current MTS and RTAM executive.
(3) Do not tell the current MTS executive that current teachers will need to
pay for retired teacher COLAs. That is an effective way to alienate the two groups
against each other, which you succeeded in doing. Shame on you. (4) Your
government has found ways to give you, as MLAs, COLA, even retroactively, I
believe. You get two-thirds. We paid for full COLA. I've clearly recalled those
conversations in the 1980s. (5) Do not take the ear
of the current MTS president and dialogue, leaving out RTAM executive members,
when discussing RTAM members' pensions and planning an ill-advised plebiscite.
The solution needed to be inclusive.
What to do with current MTS
president, Ms. Isaak? She should have known better than to dialogue with you
about retired members' pensions without RTAM members present. She acted as if
we didn't exist. She successfully created a huge gulf between two generations
of teachers by telling active teachers that they would have to pay for the
previous generation's COLAs. Her fearmongering tactics and exaggerated
financial misinformation has understandably panicked the younger active
teachers. What greater harm can a president do than to divide two generations
of our profession? This was a most despicable and thoughtless act. Shame on
her. A previous member said, on the first day, the first speaker: Can an MTS
president be impeached? That was an important question. I hope the answer is
yes.
That same member, earlier,
asked–same time: Can the whole MTS executive be impeached? Since this executive
did not stop their president's reckless and careless actions, yes, they need to
be held accountable as well.
This exercise is degrading
and dishonourable. We have had very poor leadership from both yourself, Mr.
Minister–I wish you could hear what I'm saying. I'm talking to you at this
point. We've had very poor leadership from you at this point, as well as from
the current MTS president. Regrettably, you two found each other, united and
created a most deplorable situation for all teachers, both current and past.
At
this late hour, your honour, Mr. Peter Bjornson, you could still take the four
steps I have listed and forthrightly come up with a good solution. You still
could salvage this matter. You still have an opportunity to demonstrate your
good management skills. You still have time, Mr. Minister, to do the right
thing, just as all good teachers, which I assume you were also, have done
throughout their careers. I urge you to revisit this matter, implement a
paradigm shift, engage your creative minds to achieve a respectful solution.
Place Bill 45 in the garbage.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you,
Mr. Nickel.
Questions?
Mr. Schuler: Thank you very
much, Mr. Nickel. I see it was also signed by Sharon Nickel, and if you would
convey our thanks to her as well.
The presenter is absolutely
correct. He answered the questions I was going to ask anyway. I have sat at
various committee meetings where we've given the minister opportunity to take
some committee time and sit down with groups. It happened with the Minister of
Labour, the Member for St. Vital, Nancy Allan. We did that on two different
occasions. I can remember when it was Minister Barrett, Becky Barrett, we gave
that same opportunity.
Minister, this isn't what you
thought this was going to be. I mean, I listened to this presentation and this
isn't where we thought things were going to be going in these two evenings. I
would extend to this minister the opportunity, if you wanted to take a break
from committee and maybe sit down with the various groups and have a
discussion. Certainly, on this side of the committee, we would be prepared to
give a half hour, 45-minute recess. But this is not healthy. Professional
groups coming forward with these kinds of presentations, I've heard it before;
it's not good. Yet everybody has the right to express themselves, has the right
to put on the table their feelings, and this is real feelings, and I appreciate
that, and the committee understands that. If the minister would like to take a
half hour recess, we would be prepared to give a half hour recess. But, in the
meantime, thank you for your presentation.
What we want to do is hear
from the public. To the minister, you're hearing it. I hope you're not anymore
thrilled hearing what we're hearing than I am because this is not good for
education, what we're going through. This is not what I thought this was going
to be. I don't think it's a good thing.
* (21:10)
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Nickel,
you can comment on that if you want to. I didn't hear a question, but you
certainly may contribute if you want.
Mr. Nickel: Thank you for
hearing my report.
Mr. Lamoureux: I have one
question. You have a different type of a presentation. You talk in terms of
what you would do as a minister. In terms of the committee and the way the
committee works, we get 10 minutes of presentation and then five minutes of
questions and answers. There are three individuals, in my mind, that I would
love dearly to be able to ask a lot of questions to, that being Mr. Ulrich,
from what I understand is a man of great knowledge, the representative of MTS
and the representative of the retired teachers.
Do you feel it would be of
valuable service to this committee to allow for those three individuals to be
asked whatever questions and not have that time limit, so that we can get a
better understanding of the situation? Do you think that would be a wise
decision of this minister and, particularly, to allow that to happen?
Mr. Nickel: There are some presenters that can
enlighten this committee greatly, far more than I can. Definitely, Mr. Tom Ulrich
would be one such person. Absolutely.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your time with us this
evening.
Our next presenter's name to
be called is No. 170, Wayne Stinson. Is Wayne Stinson here this evening? Seeing
no one, we drop them to the bottom of the list.
Number 171, Dawn McBain. Is Dawn McBain here this
evening? Seeing no one, they are dropped to the bottom of the list.
Number 175, Lucille Gosselin. Lucille
Gosselin. Seeing no one, her name is dropped to the bottom of the list.
Number 176, David McAuley. David McAuley is
present. I see you have copies. Thank you very much for that, sir. Mr. McAuley, you may begin whenever you're ready.
Mr. David McAuley (Private
Citizen): Thank you very much. Good evening members of the committee. I
really appreciate the opportunity, after driving twice from the Whiteshell, to
speak this evening. Mr. Schuler almost shot that down, and you always feel that
what you have to say is important. I know from attending meetings with the MTS
in executive positions back in the '70s and '80s, that's not always so. I also know as a teacher that
it's important to watch your class and see if any of them have made eye contact
with the speaker that you went ahead and tried to bring in and get them
educated.
Floor Comment: Louder, please.
Mr. McAuley: I'm sorry. I
can move that. I should know better.
Going back to this, to
explain myself, I understood at first that I was going to be asked to explain
from my perspective how the COLA-TRAF issue affected me and my family. I, now,
having attended the hearings, am reminded of one of our teaching premises that
the head can only absorb what the butt can endure.
I appreciate the opportunity
tonight to be here before the hour of midnight because I got home last night at
1:34 after driving back. That aside, I want to ask that Hansard will
record everything I had my wife, who is also a teacher, prepare with me, but I
want to deviate from it in a couple of places, and so I beg your indulgence on
that.
I taught in Manitoba schools
for almost four decades. It's a common joke with my grandson that it took me 54
years to get out of public school. However, many of those years were with the
assignment of 50 percent because I chose to teach industrial arts since 1980,
and that's often a half-time course daily in rural divisions, so you wind up
being a half-time teacher. So, as I'll point out later, my pension is very
small. Right now I'll just follow a little bit.
I was in three different
divisions, and in each one I became the employee benefits chairman during the 1970s and '80s. Whether that was
a good idea or not, at the time I felt I acted in good faith, attended the
proper meetings and took back the proper information to all of my teachers.
To my horror, I found out in
the late '80s that I had been a victim of the
difference between rhetoric and political expediency, and candid, open sharing
of information was, in fact, really misinformation designed to put off things
that should have been done.
In my mind, MTS existed to
serve the best interests of three groups of teachers: those currently under
contract, those who had retired from the profession and those teachers training
and still wishing to enter the profession.
The years of the '70s and '80s contain many of the
seeds of the mess of our pension plan, as you have heard. The priority of not
rocking the boat, even during the years of higher inflation and increased
salaries, when governments of the day were funding pensions only as a monthly
expense, meant any budget for an adequate COLA fell by the wayside for those
teachers retiring.
In return for our agreement
to fund our own disability insurance, the COLA formula would be worked out, we
felt, in that it would differ from the City of Winnipeg and government
employees who gave up, as we gave up, one-third of COLA so that we could
have–I'll pull that back. Those employees accepted two-thirds of COLA so that
they could have their total disability paid by the employees. They had no
deduction. This is not a minor detail.
The different agreement
reached was not as teachers envisioned. The government allowed us to vote for
new higher deductions for the COLA fund, and the words PAA came in. We didn't
know what they meant exactly but it sounded good and it was pension adjustment.
But, as you have heard, in the last 10 years that means pension adjustment near
to zero.
I think it's important at
this point to point out that this was all negotiated by the government and my
representative, and, in part, I was the deliverer of the message. I didn't sit
down with the government but we took it back to our divisions.
It would be important to
note, I think for all members, that the MTS representatives who appeared last night
from far out in the country, et cetera, were paid a rather healthy mileage fee
and a per diem to attend and present their we're for the act. I would believe
and I'd like a show of hands behind me of how many had to pay their own
expenses to come as members of RTAM. Thank you.
This is where I should skip
because I put in something personally about myself, and I better cut that out
because this isn't about myself. This is about feeling betrayed by my own
organization that I worked for for 25 years.
* (21:20)
Today I stand here in a
unique position of having a pension that started the same year as my wife's
pension in the year 1998. At that time my pension represented 61 percent of our
total income, hers making up the 38-plus percent. By 2008 her fully-indexed
pension now represents 43 percent of our pension income while my share's
dropped to 57 and the calculations using what has happened over the last 10
years show that I can become the minor contributor of pension funds in my
family approximately nine years from now, and it's not going to feel really
good, because my wife stayed home and we raised the three kids with her doing
the major part of that for 15 years.
There seem to be to me about
three facets to this problem: (1) The lack of adequate COLA for retired
teachers during the past decade; (2) The main PAA accounts are in disarray from
years of inability to change with the times because of the legislation act
having to be opened to do so; and (3) the heavy handed, do-what-I-say approach,
ending in a non-binding plebiscite where 22 percent yes from 26,000 teachers,
active and non-active, led to some sort of result, non-binding, perhaps to this
statement which has been alleged: The government can pass anything they want.
My father, a farmer of 79
years, constantly reminded me that a camel was a horse designed by a committee.
The newspapers are full of I'm sorrys for injustices
of former generations and while all these are well deserved, the teachers, our
profession in Manitoba, deserve no less than an apology and a vote of the
necessary funds to rectify a definite injustice.
I was just in high school
when a former principal of Rutherglen School in McAuley, Mr. (Curly) Clarence Heapy,
was asked by my ball coach while I stood in the batter's box how he liked
retirement. He replied: I'm just having difficulty learning how to be poor and
happy at the same time.
He was umping a ball game, a
task he cherished, but on a hot July day in a tournament, we all felt for the
person who had been working for the extras to which he had become accustomed
and expected his retirement to provide. Please don't let the teachers and my
family lose another $15,000-plus of purchasing power over the lifetime of the
so-called Sale solution. I ask you to do your best to improve our situation so
that my comments to future teachers won't reflect Mr. Heapy's
statement of over 50 years ago.
I attached an appendix not
knowing if I could get through that. Appendix 1 from me says Misinformation
Abounds. For example, I had to supplement my low retirement pension by
substituting for a period of 12 years. Any retiree, and some of these people
will confirm that who needs to supplement–
Mr. Chairperson: Order. I'm sorry, Mr. McAuley. The 10 minutes has expired.
Mr. McAuley:
That's it. Fine, I'm sorry. That's fine.
Mr. Chairperson: It's okay.
It just happened. With leave of the committee we could do a previous
arrangement or move to questions now.
Some Honourable Members: Let
him finish.
Mr. Chairperson: Just to be
clear, the committee will hear the rest of your presentation and it will come
out of the five minutes of question and answer time as before. Please proceed.
Mr. McAuley: Thank you very
much. Appendix 1 is titled Misinformation Abounds. For example, any retiree
such as myself who wants to work in a school to supplement their low pension
would never speak against the MTS in a school staff room or to an MTS executive
if they wished to keep their source of income in the field for which they were
trained.
We heard last night that five
in a staff room all agreed, and someone else questioned perhaps they didn't
vote that way when it got to be a secret vote. I don't know, but I do know that
division and I worked in the neighbouring division. I think that all of us have
felt betrayed. Some solutions might exist. Speaker 101 introduced it last night
and got a laugh, but when I talked to her after, I would like to call my
suggestion a grandmothering and grandfathering
reparation. Oxford defines the definition of reparation: make amends or
compensation.
Number (1) The teachers that
are burned most by the COLA shortfall in '98 to '08 are here trying to present.
Could they not be compensated by a one-time fund that would raise their pension
so that any minimal COLA that happened after that would be on the reasonable
sum they had expected? That would be grandfathering it to bring a pension that
should have been there at full COLA into play if you pass the bill and it has
such an amendment. This voted compensation would be one-time, and I guess it
would then close for 10 years and the government might look at it in 10 years.
I don't like the idea, but it might work. We could bring many of the
grass-roots people back because the people who ran this and organized it
haven't really done anything but hurt a lot of very responsible hardworking
teachers. (2) Active teachers from the date the bill is passed–if they so
desire and they are MTS members who have better standing than we do–if they
choose from the date the bill is passed, should be able to go ahead with their
up to two-thirds. That will not affect any of us as badly if we get what we
lost in the last year, 10 years, the teachers who are retired now. So there is
a way to cut the cost of the funding.
Now, all three theys, and that's my final thought, they need to get a
quick electronics lesson from a qualified teacher. I know I'm qualified, but I
don't mean me. But in the case of electronics, as I experienced it in 1980
teaching it to the youngsters, they always have their only foe as the problem,
being where the electrons go. Let's get people from the three theys together on the same side of the boulder with their
shoulders to it. We've recognized the problem. It's an injustice. The solution
is to try to lead to retirement with dignity. Let's see how three groups of
people could do what you were saying in half an hour. But sometimes it wouldn't
be the people who set up Bill 45. It would be the people who are sitting here
and have no active representation on MTS and can't get a word in edgewise.
We thank the committee, and
I'm sorry I ran overtime. If you have questions, I'll try, but I've said my
piece.
Mr. Chairperson: We have one minute for question and
answer combined. So keep it brief, please.
Mr. Schuler: First of all, I just want to say thank
you very much, Mr. McAuley, for coming back twice.
I'm sure in part it was because of all these great portraits and also because
you really feel–
Mr. McAuley: I'm sitting
under Mr. Schreyer's portrait.
Mr. Schuler: I'm sure you came back because you
really are passionate about this and, just on the statement: government can
pass anything they want, I'm not too sure government should necessarily pass
just anything. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your time.
Our next potential rural
presenter, No. 177, Clarice Gilchrist. Is Clarice Gilchrist here this evening?
Seeing no one, the name is dropped to the bottom of the list.
Number 179, Dale Lund. Is
Dale Lund here this evening? Seeing no one, the name is dropped to the bottom
of the list.
Number 182, Lyle Beattie.
Lyle Beattie here this evening? No. Seeing no one, drop their name to the
bottom of the list.
Number 183, Margaret
Hamilton. Is Margaret Hamilton here this evening? Seeing no one, the name is
dropped.
Number 185, Shirley Case. Is
Shirley Case here this evening? Seeing no one, the name is dropped to the bottom
of the list.
Number 187, Gail Sanderson.
Calling Gail Sanderson. Seeing no one, the name is dropped to the bottom of the
list.
Next rural presenter, No.
202, on page 18 near the top, Kenneth B. Tully. Is Kenneth B. Tully here this
evening? Seeing no one, their name is dropped to the bottom of the list.
Number 203, Kristina Ellis. Kristina
Ellis?–[interjection]
Please, just introduce yourself for the sake of the record.
* (21:30)
Ms. Pat Isaak (Manitoba Teachers' Society): Thank you.
I'm Pat Isaak. Kristina was not able to be here tonight, but I do have a
written presentation to submit on her behalf, with your permission.
Mr. Chairperson: Very good. With the committee's
leave, we'll accept that as part of the written record. Is there agreement?
[Agreed] Thank you for that. Kristina Ellis, No. 203, is now a written
presentation and can be removed from your speaking list.
If you go to the end of the
current list, past the rural presenters of last night, members of the committee,
you'll find No. 260, a new, out-of-town presenter, Bill Heather. Is Bill
Heather here this evening? Not seeing anyone present, we will drop their name
to the bottom of the list.
This concludes the first
round of calling the names of rural presenters, so as agreed at the committee,
we will now revert back to page 1 to the start of the list once again and
proceed to call the remaining names which will be urban. The first spot is Pat
Isaak.
Point
of Order
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, on a point of order.
The reason why I raise it is because I know we've attempted this in the past,
and I think that if we were to look at what's happened in past committees where
we have a substantial piece of legislation before the committee, we have
afforded the opportunity to ask some of those that are making presentation
virtually an extended period of time.
I think that there are two or
possibly three individuals that would be of great benefit if this committee
would allow for members, all members, but I would suggest at least a much
better opportunity to ask questions. So I rise on a point of order only because
one of those presenters that is before us now is the president of MTS, and I
think that it would be beneficial for all those present, in particular, members
that have questions, to be able to ask the questions that are very important in
regard to Bill 45, ultimately believing it's in the public's best interest. So
I would ask if you as the Chair would canvass to see if we would recognize what
we've done in the past and allow for more questions and answers, given this
particular presenter. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: I will make a ruling. It's not a
point of order what you have raised, but, of course, the committee could grant
leave along the lines of what you have proposed if it wishes to do so. So I
will ask the committee. If there's anyone wants to speak to that, they may, or
I'll just ask the committee, or–Mr. Schuler?
Mr. Schuler: This is not precedent setting. I think
we have a bill in front of us, and clearly, there are divisions within the
organizations. The next speaker represents a very integral and important
component of what we're discussing here, and I know I've got a whole bunch of
questions that I would like to ask and certainly would appreciate if we would
be given a little bit of latitude in regard to this particular speaker so that
we could get a little bit more information for the committee.
Ms. Howard: I appreciate the request, but I do think
it's more fair to be consistent. Everybody here has been given the same amount
of time. I think that everyone who appears before the committee has a lot to
offer, and I think because we have been running the committee in that way and
my understanding was that previously there was a similar request for another
witness which was denied, I think we will deny leave for this request as well.
Mr. Chairperson: Leave has been denied, so we will
proceed.
* * *
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chair, I thought we would have an
opportunity to at least make comment on the request so that before members of
the government wade into the debate and deny leave but a precedent in this
committee has been where we have had members of a political party who have been
given latitude because of their knowledge on an issue to not only be asked
questions but to extend their presentations.
These are former members of a
political party, and I believe that when you have an organization that is the
significance of either whether it's the Retired Teachers' Association or the
Manitoba Teachers' Society, that that latitude should also be extended with
respect to that kind of an organization. I guess I appeal to what Ms. Howard
has just put on the record and indicate that because this committee has set a
precedent in the past, that that precedent should be honoured even this evening
when we are talking to a major head of an organization such as the MTS.
Mr. Chairperson: We certainly appreciate the comments
made. The question has been put to the committee to grant leave and leave has
been denied. So, with that said, we will proceed to hear the next presenter.
Mr. Derkach: Point of order.
Point
of Order
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Derkach, on a point of order.
Mr. Derkach: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I do
want it noted for the public record that leave has been denied by the
government.
Mr. Chairperson: On the same point of order, Mr.
Schuler?
Mr. Schuler: Yeah, I think it's unfortunate, because
certainly we, as a committee, have a lot of questions we'd like to ask of this
particular speaker. I think it diminishes what we're trying to do here and
probably goes to a lot of the presentations that we've heard until this point
in time where people have said, you know, we hope this isn't just a sham, that
you're holding this in the middle of summer so that nobody listens and this
just all goes away for the government. We are sitting here for a reason, we are
taking this serious.
The next speaker has an
integral role and is very important to the deliberations of this committee, but
I guess the fear of most of the presenters is that this is just an opportunity
of government to rush through this as quickly as possible, that the committee
is just one of those irrelevant speed bumps on the way to getting legislation
passed. I'm disappointed in that and again, really, we are an incredibly small
minority in opposition. With 36 members, the government can, as the quote was,
pass whatever they want. I guess that's where we stand and that's unfortunate
for this committee.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr.
Chomiak, on the same point of order.
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of
Justice and Attorney General): Yes, Mr. Chairperson, I don't think members
have a point of order. Most of–in fact, everything we're doing tonight has been
negotiated and discussed. We don't make up rules in the middle of committee to
make political points. We try to work this collectively.
We've agreed to this meeting,
we've agreed to these hours, we agreed to these dates with the members of the
opposition in the middle of summer in order to allow people to present. Now
we're moving along to allow committee members to present and I think we ought
to afford the people who've come out here on this date in the middle of summer,
as the member keeps mentioning, to present their cases before us. There are
dozens of people who've been here last night and tonight and tomorrow night and
the next night. Let's hear them. We can talk all we want anytime we want.
They're here to present. Let them present. Let's move on with presentations.
Mr. Chairperson: I think I've heard enough to make a
ruling. It is not a point of order which has been raised, so I will rule the
point of order out of order.
Point of Order
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Derkach, on a new point of
order?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chair, on a new point of order. I
regret to do this, but Mr. Chomiak knows very well that it was government-led
negotiations that led to the sitting of this committee during the mid-summer
months, not something that was led by an opposition. We did not sign on it.
Secondly, Mr. Chair, Mr.
Chomiak is also wrong about setting time frames for presentations in the middle
of a committee meeting because it was a former NDP MLA who was granted time to
give extra presentation in this committee and rightfully so. I don't deny that
that shouldn't have been done. But, for Mr. Chomiak to put on the record that
in fact, the rules were agreed to beforehand and should not be departed from is
certainly erroneous because those rules were, in fact, broken in another
committee hearing and in fact, a member was given time to present, and extended
time to present. That is the purpose of a committee. That is the purpose of a
committee. The committee can, in fact, depart from those rules of running a
committee if it so chooses. That has the power.
So, Mr. Chomiak, in terms of
your statements, you're a little erroneous in that regard.
Mr. Chairperson: A point of order, just for
everyone's benefit, is a legitimate tool to be used to point out a breach of
the rules or something that I, as Chair, have missed. This is not a point of
order. It is a dispute over the facts, which is fine, but it's not a point of
order.
* * *
* (21:40)
Mr. Chairperson: So we will now proceed to hear from
Pat Isaak, our first presenter on the list from Winnipeg. I see you have
copies. Thank you for that. You may proceed when you are ready.
Ms. Isaak: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You are receiving a
copy of a printed submission. I'm not going to work off of that copy. I am
instead going to use my time to respond to some of the issues that have been
raised in these hearings. I will however, submit that for the record.
My name is Pat Isaak. I'm the
president of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. I wish to express my gratitude to
the committee for hearing our views on this issue. The issue at hand is a
financial one. I understand and empathize with all of the emotional arguments
that are made about pensions, but pensions are a financial issue. I have been
on the record many times as saying that pension plans are a balancing act which
I believe they are. Pensions are about money in and money out and those two
things have to balance.
You heard several presenters
last night say that they either don't understand or don't wish to talk about
the numbers. Well, I do, because numbers are what got us here and numbers are
the only things that are going to get us out. But if you will permit me for a
moment, much has also been said about my personal motivation about this issue.
I do, in fact, have a very personal connection to this pension plan. My father
was a class 3 teacher and paid into this plan for 34 years. He took what he
considered to be early retirement in 1985 at the age of 64 and he lived on his
pension for 19 years until he passed away four years ago. My mother, who just
turned 85 last week, now lives on the two-thirds survivor benefit of his class
3 pension.
So is this issue important to
me? You bet it is, but what motivates me is not standing still. What motivates
me is making it better. That's what the Manitoba Teachers' Society has been
attempting to do for the past five years. The only thing that will make this
pension better for my mom today, better for me tomorrow, and better for all my
colleagues, is to make the numbers balance.
There was much said last
night about promises, guarantees, expectations and entitlements. These terms
have been tossed around interchangeably but their meanings in the context of
the issue before you are critical. There is no guarantee of COLA in The
Teacher's Pensions Act. There never has been. There were promises made about
COLA that never should have been made. Those promises created expectations in
the minds of active teachers, expectations that could not have been met. Those
expectations came to be seen as entitlements and therein lies the
disillusionment of many of the retired teachers that you've heard from.
Many people over the last two
evenings have said they felt as though MTS let them down. They're right. I feel
personally disappointed and professionally embarrassed that an organization, my
organization and my father's organization, knew that what they were doing in
the 1980's and 1980's was
wrong and was unsustainable and they did it anyway.
I can't begin to explain
those actions, I wasn't there. What I can say is this. The easiest course of
action for the current executive of the Manitoba Teachers' Society would be to
leave everything in place that our predecessors put in place and we are simply
not prepared to do that.
Much has also been said about
misinformation. It's important that you distinguish between misinformation and
information that people don't want to hear. Throughout this process, MTS has
provided information. It has angered many people. It has caused a great deal of
dissent but we have provided the facts and the numbers. I think I heard one
presenter say last night that dissent is good. The bottom line is that our
pension plan is underfunded and our pension plan has been underfunded for 20
years.
I want to address the issue
of surplus because it was raised a few times. Pension plans experience
actuarial surplus and deficits over time, and ours is no different. But
actuarial surpluses are not money in the bank. Over the course of two decades,
our actuarial surpluses were spent, sometimes on benefit improvements,
sometimes on COLA. Those were real benefit improvements that should have been
paid for with real contribution dollars and that wasn't done.
In essence, and I know this
is difficult for many people to hear, but most of our retirees are, in fact,
receiving benefits that they were never asked to pay for. I say they
were never asked to pay for a reason. Many retired teachers have spoken with me
over the past few years, and what they've said is this: I would have gladly
paid more money into my pension plan when I was teaching, but nobody ever asked
me to. And that is a real shame. They should have been asked. They should have
been given the real financial picture of their pension plan, both the money
that needed to come in and the money that was going out. And they should have
been afforded the opportunity to make decisions about those contributions. They
were not afforded those opportunities.
A final comment about
surplus. I heard last night, and I quote: Pat Isaak said that all the account A
surplus should go to active teachers. That's not accurate. What I have said is
this: the surplus in account A should remain in account A. To rob the basic
benefit to pay COLA is wrong on every conceivable level and it is something
that the society will never agree to. Any discussion, however, about surplus, I
have to tell you, is a moot point. Our plan doesn't have a surplus. Our plan
has been in a deficit for the last two evaluation cycles.
I want to comment on
something that the very first presenter said last night. Mr. Paterson said:
allow retired teachers to get what they paid for. If the current provincial
executive of the Manitoba Teachers' Society took that stand, we would be even
less popular with RTAM than we are now. The fact is, and I have said this
before, most retired teachers are getting more in benefits than they paid for.
Let me explain the numbers. This pension plan was built for people like my dad
and many of the people who you've heard. It was built to pay 35 years. Retire
between 60 and 65. Draw a pension for 15 years. Two in, one out. What people do
now is they pay in for 30 years and draw out for 30 years. That's one in, one
out. You are going to run out of money pretty quickly if you draw out at that
rate.
What happened over the course
of 20 years is that the lines between money moving in and money moving out kept
changing. We found ourselves with a plan that saw teachers, conceivably,
drawing a benefit longer than they paid in. All the focus was on the benefit
side of the balance sheet, and there was no attention paid to the contribution
side for 25 years. That was not the deal.
What active teachers are
asking is this: Why did this happen and why do I now have to pay so much more
for the same benefit? Difficult questions. I can answer those questions, but I
can't answer this one: if, as the RTAM president stated last night, we paid for
a full COLA, what happened to the money? Because there isn't money for a full
COLA.
Mr. Chairperson: One minute.
Ms. Isaak: There was some mention of mismanagement.
There has never been mismanagement of our pension fund. There have been some
short-sighted decisions about the plan, but the money has never been
mismanaged.
I want to conclude by
addressing the issue of talking. I have heard repeated comments, we need to get
rid of Bill 45 and get back to the table and talk. I'm happy to talk about this
pension plan. The people on my executive know that nobody likes to talk about
pensions more than I do, anytime, any place, with anyone as long as it takes.
In fact, that's what we've been doing for years. As my father would say, we can
talk till the cows come home, but while we are talking, our plan sits idle and
not one thin dime will flow into this plan while people are sitting around the
table talking.
What our plan needs is money.
Active teachers have said that they will pay more. Government has said that
they will pay more. Bill 45 allows us both to do that and to move on, and I
encourage you to do that.
Thank you very much for your
time.
* (21:50)
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for the presentation.
I have a speakers' list
started.
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of
Conservation): Thank you for your presentation. I'm concerned that the
impression is being left–and you touched on this a little bit when you talked
about negotiations that have taken place. It's been suggested by some friends
of ours across the table that we can get together for half an hour; we can all
huddle in the hallway and somehow solve this.
Can you describe for me a bit
some of the negotiations that have taken place? What have we gained through
those negotiations?
Ms. Isaak: Thank you. There have been numerous
discussions. I have been involved in Pension Task Force discussions going back
probably about a decade, and we have discussed this, most specifically the COLA
issue probably, though, for about the last five years.
In fact, five years ago was
when the teachers decided to put the request for the 2 percent contribution
increase on the table. There was considerable discussion about that and at that
time the two-thirds maximum on the COLA was also a part of that package, if you
will, of discussions. In fact, it was the two-thirds max at that time, similar
to what it is today, that effectively killed that deal.
So we have had lots of
discussions. We have been trying to come back for the last five years, but I
have to be honest. Frankly, we could go back and talk for five more years. Mr.
Schuler, with all due respect to you and to Winston Churchill, it maybe better
to jaw-jaw than war-war but somebody needs to pay-pay. At the end of the day,
someone needs to pay for these benefits, and we can talk about that for as long
as anybody in this room likes; somebody needs to pay for those benefits.
Our members are saying, even
though we won't get more of a benefit, we are prepared to pay a higher
contribution rate. In essence, what they are doing is they're catching up to
the benefit improvements that were made 20 years ago. That's in essence what
they will be doing. An offshoot of that, of course, is that a portion of that
money will go to improve the COLA, and that's a good thing.
Mr. Chairperson: I have a speakers' list, but we only
have two and a half minutes left, if Mr. Schuler or Lamoureux or Borotsik–we'll
get through as much as we can.
Mr. Schuler: Thank you very
much, Madam President. You've been here all yesterday evening and today, and
you've sat with great credibility and integrity. A lot of things that have been
said probably haven't been the easiest on you, and I give you a lot of credit
for sitting here and for listening to it. I can only imagine how tough it's
been for you. My standing offer–and I know we haven't had the time–I still owe
you a latte at Starbucks, and I still want to ensure that you get that. I
really do appreciate the way that you have handled this issue. I mean, it's a
tough one on both sides. We know that.
I
have two questions for you and I'll roll it into one. Pam Stinson had sort of
mentioned that if we were to go to 100 percent funded COLA without enduring a
major increase, it was estimated at $3,000 that every teacher would have to
contribute over and above what they do right now. It was at $3,000 every
teacher, every year, and also bringing the cost of a 30 percent COLA to about
$1 billion that the government would have to put in every year; that also,
again, every year. So, if you could just sort of address those, and, anyway, I
appreciate you spending time here and listening to all the presentations.
Ms. Isaak: Thank you for that.
In answer to the first part
of your question, the $3,000 would be, yes, per teacher, per year. The cost of
funding, the last time we sort of did an actuarial analysis of that was, I
think, in 2002. At that time, a 3 percent COLA was estimated to be $940
million. So if you factor in that about 500 teachers have retired every year,
it would probably be considerably more than a billion dollars. That would be to
fund the COLA for those people who are retired at that time. The additional
incremental cost, then, would be for the additional retirees to prefund every
year.
But it is not simply the
mathematical equation of taking 3 percent times the pension times one year.
It's 3 percent times that pension compounded over the life of that retiree. So,
it wouldn't necessarily be a billion dollars each and every year, but it
certainly would be–well, I don't know the math on that, but the $3,000 is per
teacher per year in addition to their present contributions.
Mr. Chairperson: Regrettably, we have reached the
five-minute limit, so the committee thanks you for your time with us this
evening.
Ms. Isaak: Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Our next presenter, No. 3 on the
list, Mariette–Mr. Lamoureux?
Point
of Order
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I just have to, you
know, on a point of order. I have a list of 10 questions that I would have
loved the opportunity to have been able to ask this presenter. I find that it's
unfortunate. I think this is the first time in two evenings we had a government
member pose a question which took half the questions and answers and it was a
Cabinet minister.
I guess I'm just somewhat
offended to the degree in which I just feel that I'm not being allowed to ask,
what I believe is in the public's best interest, a series of questions to
someone that played a critical role in the reason why we have Bill 45 here
today. If the committee members were sympathetic to what it is that I've just
said, maybe they'll afford me leave to ask my questions.
Mr. Chairperson: Leave has been requested of the
committee. Mr. Schuler, you have a comment on this regard?
Mr. Schuler: On the same point of order, I think it's
shameful that NDP Cabinet ministers would, all of a sudden, wake up and have a
question presented to a presenter. I think, you know what, there are members
here who have sat here, you know, diligently throughout this whole process, who
have legitimate questions. The speaker has a lot of information. This
particular individual has a lot to offer to the committee and we should have
afforded a little bit more time. She's an, you know, one of the leaders of a
very important organization in this province and to cut her short like that and
then have an NDP Cabinet minister take time away, I think, is absolutely
disgraceful.
Mr. Chairperson: Leave has been requested of the
committee to allow additional time–order. Mr. Schuler, order. Mr. Chomiak?
There's one conversation going on right now and that's the microphone that's
on. Sorry to say this, but at the moment it's all about me.
Leave has been requested of
the committee. Does the committee grant leave?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Chairperson: Leave has been denied.
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: We will now proceed with Mariette Ferré. Apologies in advance. I think I have probably
pronounced your last name incorrectly. I see you have copies of your
presentation, though. Thank you for that.
Just before you begin, what
is the correct pronunciation of your name?
Ms. Mariette Ferré (Private
Citizen): You did very well. It's Mariette Ferré.
Mr. Chairperson: Wow. I did not do very well at all.
Ms. Ferré:
Close enough.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you
very much, Mme Ferré. You may begin when you're
ready.
* (22:00)
Ms. Ferré:
Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairperson, honourable minister, members of the
legislative committee, teacher colleagues, collègues des éducateurs
francophones du Manitoba. [colleagues of the Francophone teachers of
Manitoba]
As a retired teacher,
I'm here today to enter into the public record my strong opposition to Bill 45.
It is extremely disconcerting to have to present concerns about a situation
that never ought to have arisen. If the government and the Manitoba Teachers'
Society had been committed to fairness and equality, all 32,145 members of the
teachers' pension plan would not be here today. Those numbers come from page 3
of TRAF annual report, 2007.
In my career as a teacher and
in my last 22 years in education as a staff officer of the Teachers' Society, I
relied on the MTS to represent with integrity the interests of all members of
the teachers' pension plan, of which I am a member. I am very chagrined to
witness that this is no longer occurring. As a result, the economic well-being
of all teachers will continue to be at risk.
As ably demonstrated by RTAM,
the Sale report and the entire process leading to Bill 45 has been flawed and
inappropriate from the outset. Firstly, why does the Sale report omit important
historical information? The report is completely silent about the very
significant history of the 1977 agreement between the government of Manitoba
and the MTS.
I
recall, as a teacher in my early career, I agreed to and fully supported the
Manitoba Teachers' Society recommendation and subsequent agreement with
government in 1977–there is an error in my brief; it is 1977–to: increase our
pension contributions to a much higher amount than civil servants were paying
in exchange for guarantee of a full COLA protection to a maximum of 5 percent
to 6 percent; remove the disability pension benefits and survivor benefits;
provide for future retirees a full COLA provided sufficient funds were
available within a Pension Adjustment Account, and we were informed that the
account was funded to provide a COLA of 5 percent to 6 percent per year.
Effective in 1977, teachers who had already previously retired received a COLA
of 5.8 percent which in that year was 98.1 percent of the CPI. I understood
that we would have to pay for our own disability insurance. Being blessed, or
perhaps cursed, with a social conscience and a strong commitment to the
well-being of the teacher collective, I never begrudged the fact that the 1977
deal ensured cost-of-living for teachers already retired at that time. As part
of a collective, I endorsed totally the concept that retired teachers had a
right to economic well-being in their senior years.
Secondly, why did the
government avoid seeking the expertise of experienced, knowledgeable and
credible specialists in plan design and administration? Why did the government
choose a political appointee, therefore ensuring further politicization of the
process? Mr. Tim Sale, a respected member of the Legislature and of the NDP was
clearly a political appointee of the government. He did not have the pension
background, experience or credibility to deal with the complex task to which he
was assigned.
Government chose to take the
political route. Government knew that active and retired teachers have been
engaged in a dispute for some time now. So what better way to heighten the
dispute than to select strategies that fuel the conflict? What better way to
take the heat off the government and let the teachers fight among themselves?
Government could then sit back, enjoy watching the dispute escalate and not
have to attend to any of its obligations as plan sponsor.
Thirdly, from whom did Mr.
Sale obtain the mandate referred to on page 2 of his report at the outset of
the process to request the actuary to design a plan for two-thirds COLA? Was
the mandate negotiated in advance? Is there information that is not being
shared with 32,145 plan members?
Fourthly, the recommendations
of the report that have been entrenched in Bill 45 do not present a fair and
equitable funding model for COLA either for current retirees or for future
retirees. Tinkering with the formula will, in all likelihood, never guarantee a
COLA anywhere close to two-thirds of the CPI.
The net effects of the Sale
report, and others have commented on that: to reduce potential benefits for
current and future retirees; to cause entrenchment of an inter-generational
conflict and fuel the hard feelings that all disputes foster; to discourage any
discussions for the next 10 years.
The process undertaken by the
government and the MTS, including the plebiscite, were flawed from the outset.
I am really, really chagrined to have to say to you here today that in written
publications that I've read subsequent to the Sale report, MTS claimed to
represent all teachers, provided information that was misleading or incorrect,
that contained partial truths, that totally omitted historical facts about the
COLA issue and promised that a yes to the COLA vote would result in doubling
retired teachers COLA in 2008 without indicating that the doubling would
provide a paltry increase less than two-thirds of the CPI in 2008.
Active teachers were led
falsely to believe that recommendations of the Sale report, if legislated,
would resolve the problems for all active and retired members in the long term.
All of that is false. Both the government and the MTS claimed moral victory
following publication of the results of the supposedly non-binding plebiscite
purportedly funded with taxpayers' dollars. The society on its Web site claimed
that the majority of members of the teachers' plan support the Sale
recommendations. I say to you today, 5,848 teachers who voted yes represent
only 18 percent of the 32,145 plan members who should all have received
ballots. To claim moral victory under such circumstances is unethical. How can
we believe we are part of democracy under such circumstances?
I'll comment briefly on
section 49, access to surplus funds in the pension plan. After 2018, any
surpluses that may accumulate in the Pension Adjustment Account during any year
of the 10-year period are to be reserved for use after the end of that period.
Bill 45 provides that regulations will be determined by the TRAF board with the
approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
I wish to remind the
legislative committee that the TRAF board is currently constituted of three MTS
member representatives and four government representatives. One of those
appointments may be at the whim of government to be a retired teacher.
According to Bill 45, regulations can thus be passed without transparency and
without recourse for those who might be negatively affected. If the TRAF board
is authorized to propose these changes in regulations, then RTAM must also have
official representation on that board.
In
respect to surpluses in the PAA, I remind the legislative committee that all
surpluses earned in the teachers' pension plan are earned on the dollars
invested by the collective contributions of active and retired teachers and
should belong to all of us. That is a fact that needs to be recognized in all
future discussions about COLA and in future pension reform, which, I believe
everybody agrees, is needed.
Section 52, the Pension Task Force is referred to in proposed amendments to the
act. The provision allows that the task force make recommendations to the–
Mr. Chairperson: One minute remaining.
Ms. Ferré:
–Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council respecting contribution rates. The Bill 45
amendment does not specify a composition of the force other than to state that
there are representatives from government and from the society. Given the awful
experiences of recent pension reform processes and the abysmal treatment of
RTAM representatives, we can foresee that all future pension reforms will be
politicized. The Pension Task Force ought to be included in the act with
provision for composition, mandate, powers, duties, responsibilities and
conflict of interest guidelines. In addition, membership must also include
credible and experienced pension specialists on all teacher plan governing
bodies. As retired teachers in recent years, we have collectively witnessed the
devastating effects of increased politicization of governance of our plan.
Mr. Chairperson: Order. I'm afraid we've reach the
10-minute mark. Mr. Schuler.
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr. Chairperson: The committee is willing, it sounds
like, to grant leave in lieu of question time. Thank you for that, committee
members. Please proceed.
* (22:10)
Ms. Ferré: In my previous
capacity as staff officer of the MTS, I had the privilege of providing support
to a group representing active and retired women teachers who in January 2000,
with the society's support, filed in the Court of Queen's Bench a declaration
that provisions of The Teachers' Pensions Act were in contravention of the
Manitoba Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The issue before the court
was to obtain the right to purchase pension service for periods of maternity
leave. For over 20 years prior to 2000, successive governments continued to
deny women this right. In order to avoid a court battle that would ultimately
have been a major embarrassment to the government, Bill 45, an act to amend The
Teachers' Pensions Act, 2000, was enacted by the NDP government in 2000. The
only substantive amendment made to The Teachers' Pensions Act since 1985 was
enacted as a result of a legal action initiated to force the government of
Manitoba to respect the human rights of women teachers.
It now appears that we may
have to go to the courts to encourage governments to respect the human rights
of all retired teachers. In my view, if Bill 45 is passed into legislation, a
human rights violation will be entrenched in a Manitoba statute. We need to
ensure that that does not happen. I beg of you, Bill 45 must be withdrawn. It's
time to implement fair and equitable provisions for funding of COLA and of the
teachers' pension plan.
Thank you. I'm surprised by
the emotion.
Mr. Chairperson: Well, it's more than fine, ma'am.
Questions. Mr. Borotsik, then Mr. Schuler.
Mr. Borotsik: Very briefly, wow, this presentation is
absolutely a knockout, and I am going to work my way through all these, but I
can assure you, yours will be on the top of the list, and I will go through it.
I just have a question.
You've got in your
presentation 32,145 eligible voters where 25,616 ballots were sent out. There's
7,000 difference there. Can you please explain to me where the differential is
for the 7,000?
Ms. Ferré: I gave you the
wrong page number. At page 1 of the TRAF annual report '07, those are the '07
numbers. That's all I had available. So the active teachers 14,987, the retired
11,139, the deferred 6,019. So what's missing? Missing from the vote would be
the deferred pensions. Those would be the teachers who have monies in the
pension plan who have left to work for other employers or who have maybe
retired a few years before they were entitled to do so to follow a spouse, that
kind of thing. Maybe they're short on service and then have to wait till later
to have the right to get their pension.
Mr. Schuler: Thank you, Mme Ferré.
I thank you very much for your presentation and for waiting so patiently. I
would suggest to you this is not a presentation. This is akin to a Cabinet
briefing document. There is so much in here, and I will take some time and read
through it.
I did want to, just pull out,
you made one comment in here that the government basically sat by and, instead
of living up to its obligations as a plan sponsor, seemed to, you put, enjoy
watching the dispute escalate. Even the president of MTS, which made it very
clear that this is a money issue and governments have to step up, and we
certainly appreciate your presentation. I think you articulated that very well,
as have others, that there has to be leadership on behalf of the government on
this. Thank you for your presentation.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you once again for your time
with us this evening.
I do have a note for the
committee members. We have received a written submission, an e-mail in fact, in
place of presenter No. 228, that is Mr. Tony Baliant.
So if you care to make a note that Tony Baliant has
now sent in a written submission, and is there leave of the committee to accept
that as the official recording of our deliberations? [Agreed] Thank you
very much for that; 228 so noted.
Up next, No. 4, Tom Ulrich. I
see you have written copies. Thank you for that. You may begin when you are
ready.
Mr. Tom Ulrich (Private Citizen): Thank you, Mr.
Chairperson, honourable minister, members of the committee. I'm not going to
attempt to read my brief. As you pick it up you will notice it is well beyond
what 10 minutes would allow. I will, however, speak to it briefly in the hopes
of highlighting some of the information.
I am surprised and
disappointed to be here. I had never contemplated in my life I would have to
come before a legislative committee to vehemently oppose legislation that had
been agreed to between the Teachers' Society and the government of Manitoba.
Bill 45 is unfortunately the
most regressive piece of pension legislation affecting teachers that has ever
been tabled in the legislative Chamber of Manitoba. It does not do what it
pretends to do. It does not bring about any resolution to the problems of
paying COLA to retired teachers. Unfortunately, what it does do is to create
and legislate intergenerational conflict between members of the pension plan
for teachers. In the hearings to date, you have certainly had that adequately
demonstrated to you, that it hasn't brought about any resolution. It has been
more effective in its ability to divide and conquer.
I obviously come from a
different time and place. the MTS that I worked for, for over a quarter of a
century, was dedicated to representing the concerns of all teachers, active and
retired, in a fair and equitable fashion. In the late '70s
when we were discussing with active teachers the problems of the pension plan,
it was underfunded at that time. There was no guarantee of COLA.
The discussions we had with
active teachers, it was never once raised that those retired teachers had not
paid their fair share. They paid what they were allowed to pay. There was no
question about the fact that those teachers–and just of interest, there is a
younger group of teachers that are now teaching in Manitoba. They weren't
concerned as much about their own pensions as they were about the financial
stability of their retired colleagues.
Government, at that time,
also took a very different stance than it is taking today. In the early '70s, the government of Manitoba, recognizing that there was
a real problem with the cost of inflation on the pensions of retired teachers,
of their own volition passed legislation to grant cost-of-living adjustments to
the full effect of the consumer price index, retroactive for each teacher to
the date of retirement. At that time, some teachers saw their pensions doubled
or greater. They understood that this was a problem, not of teachers' creation,
nor necessarily, at that time, of government's creation. Those of you who lived
through the '70s recall it was a time of serious
inflation, but government acted to do something about it. Recognizing this was
a long-term problem, they called together representatives of the society, the
government and actuarial expertise to try to find a long-term solution and in
1976 created the Pension Task Force. I was pleased for some 23 years to be a
member of that task force.
It wasn't easy slogging to
find a solution. Teachers had to give up something. Teachers had to pay more.
Teachers had to accept that their benefit structure would be different than it
was for the civil service. Initially, the government was insisting on a
two-thirds COLA, because that's what they were prepared to do for the civil
service. That was not acceptable to the Teachers' Society nor to the teachers
at large. As a result, a deal was struck that provided a Pension Adjustment
Account that would, in fact, provide a reasonable COLA.
It's quite correct in terms
of what has been said. There was never a guarantee of full COLA. What there was
a guarantee of was that there would be a reasonable COLA that would be funded
at a level that would be able to pay a cost-of-living adjustment equal to or
slightly greater than the inflation assumption used by the actuary.
* (22:20)
In 1978, that inflation assumption
was 4.5 percent and, as you have heard already, the fund was initially
established to be able to pay between 5 percent and 6 percent. How do I know
that? Well, I was there, and I believe I am now the only person left in
Manitoba who was there throughout those discussions. But you don't have to take
my word for it. George Strang, who so ably
represented teachers, was prone to put things down in writing and, attached to
the back of my brief is the article he wrote in the September '77 issue of the
Manitoba Teacher, an article, by the way, that was vetted with government.
They agreed that that correctly and adequately expressed the agreement that had
been reached, and you've already seen other people comment on what he said at
that time.
We've heard a lot about
misinformation and misrepresentation and there's a lot of it going around, and
I don't think any one party is the owner of all of that misinformation or
misrepresentation. I've seen it coming from the society, I've seen it coming
from RTAM, I've seen it coming in the Sale report and the comments of the
minister and especially from the media. But the reality is pensions are a very
complex issue. I've spent a lot of my life working in the area, and I don't
claim to understand everything there is to understand about it, but I have
learned a bit. Unfortunately, misinformation has been used to prejudice
peoples' minds against an acceptable resolution. Too many people have accepted
as fact information they believe they have heard. I'd just like to touch on a
few of those.
I've already talked about the
1977 deal and its outcome and the information that has been presented by the
Teachers' Society. The information that has been commented on by RTAM in terms
of guarantees is a misunderstanding of the deal. If you want to know what the
deal was, go back and listen to what George Strang
wrote. There has been misrepresentation about what RTAM has been asking for.
I'm not actively engaged with RTAM on an ongoing basis, but I do receive their
information and I know what they have been asking for is that the initial deal
be re-established and honoured, not that there be some backing off, some breach
of a commitment that was made to teachers at that time. They said–because
you've got to remember, use of a PAA is funding cost-of-living adjustments
through intergenerational transfers. It's not money in and money out, but it
does have to add up. But they said: we will assure the current generation of
retired teachers that they will receive adequate COLAs, and we will hope that
our colleagues in the future will do the same for us. Maybe they were naïve.
You've heard the number
mentioned that it will cost $3,000 per teacher per year to provide a reasonable
COLA. Well, I can tell you, quite frankly, from my knowledge of what it would
cost to fix the Pension Adjustment Account, that's a number pulled out of the
air. If there was that kind of money available I could guarantee more than a
full COLA with it with reasonable investments.
But what does Bill 45 do?
Over the past four or five years COLA has ranked between 20 percent and 40
percent of CPI with an average of only 29 percent. What does 45 do? It will
raise that to between 40 percent and 50 percent of CPI. Two-thirds of CPI is a
magic goal that will not likely ever been achieved during this so-called
10-year period. They talk about a 5.33 percent maximum. That is absolutely
ludicrous. To get a 5.33 percent cost-of-living adjustment would require three
years of investment return in excess of 30 percent per year. I don't think
that's going to happen, and if we see a resurgence of inflation, as has been
suggested, we will see poor investment returns and higher costs.
Solutions are possible but
they all involve more money, and I agree with the Teachers' Society, it is
unfair to ask the active teachers to pay the load for all of that neglect over
the last 24 years. I disagree with them as to who is responsible for the
neglect. They have chosen to blame the history of their own organization and their
retired colleagues. Their retired colleagues had absolutely no say in that
decision.
Mr. Chairperson: The 10 minutes has expired. With
committee's leave, we can continue. [Agreed] Leave has been granted as
per previous. This time will now come out of the five minutes of question and
answer.
Mr. Ulrich: Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Ulrich, you may continue.
Mr. Ulrich: Here are the
things that are possible. Number 1, the actual earnings of the PAA should be
restored to it. Over the past five years, the PAA has earned $40 million in
excess of what it's been credited, all of which has been credited to account A
in addition to the ordinary earnings of account A. That, in fairness, should be
returned. In the future, the PAA should be credited with what it actually
earns. That was, by the way, done for the civil service plan some years ago.
I'm not sure why the government has been so resistant to doing that for the
teachers' pension plan.
You
need to provide the Pension Adjustment Account with a share of excess
investment earnings. I have suggested in my brief that be one-third. There is
no possible moral justification for the excess earnings being used to benefit
only about 45 percent of the members, that being the active teachers. They
should certainly get their fair share plus, because the risk is still with
them.
We need to establish
appropriate funding targets and we need to establish an appropriate share of
that funding target to be met by teacher contributions, and government needs to
accept responsibility for its neglect over the past quarter century.
If less than a full COLA is
possible, let's look at creative ways of making sure that those who earn the
least get the best protection. Maybe a little social readjustment is possible as
we look through this. What you have here does not do either active or retired
teachers any favours. They both deserve better in Bill 45. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your comments. We
have–[interjection] Order. Thank you. We have a little less than three
minutes remaining for questions. Mr. Schuler, followed by Mr. Lamoureux.
Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much, Mr. Ulrich. We've
heard your name bandied about since yesterday, and I can see why. We have
another Cabinet briefing document and I will make sure I take it home and read
through it.
Mr. Ulrich: I'm the horse you heard about.
Mr. Schuler: You're the horse we heard about. And Ms.
Ferré, the same thing, her presentation. That's
what's so unfortunate for us sitting at this committee, is I suggested half an
hour that the minister could go outside and I was mocked by the Minister Stan
Struthers for suggesting half an hour, and you're given all of 10 minutes.
You're the one guy who actually was there and knows what he's talking about,
and we're allowed in total 15 minutes. I mean, that is what's so frustrating
about this entire process. [interjection]
Mr. Chairperson: Order. Mr. Schuler has the floor.
Mr. Schuler: I just want to say thank you for the
presentation. Certainly I will be reading up on this. It's just very
unfortunate. You should have been one of the individuals that should have been
brought in front of this committee and been given an hour to lay out what had
happened and where this was going, as should have the president of MTS.
We are short-changing this
committee. We are short-changing what we're trying to do here as legislators
and we are short-changing Manitobans who are being affected by this, and that's
very unfortunate.
Thank you for coming and
living by those concerns. Appreciate it.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Ulrich, if you want to comment
on that, I didn't hear a question, but you may comment if you like, or we can
move to the next question.
Mr. Ulrich: I would just say thank you for your
comments. I would be glad, if anybody has a follow-up question that they want
to contact me on personally, to discuss this matter with anybody, anytime,
anywhere.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Lamoureux, briefly.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Ulrich, have you ever had the
opportunity or requested by the Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson) to sit
down and to share your experience with respect to Bill 45, or have you met with
the Minister of Education in the last four months, and, if so, can you give
just in a capsule your opinion on that?
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Ulrich, again, briefly, if you
can.
Mr. Ulrich: No.
Mr. Chairperson: That's brief. That's top marks for
brief.
Mr. Lamoureux, brief
follow-up.
Mr. Lamoureux: Do you believe that a compromise is,
in fact, achievable that would reunite MTS and RTAM?
* (22:30)
Mr. Ulrich: At the point things are at, that is going
to be extremely difficult. We must remember the primary responsibility for this
pension plan and any public-sector pension plan in Manitoba rests with the
government. It is up to them to find a solution. They legislated the problem.
They avoided their responsibility over 24 years, and there's a lot of blame to
go around on that one, but the reality is, it is now their responsibility to
come up with a fix.
There are a lot of people who
could help them discuss that fix, but they can't rely on a false plebiscite to
try to claim victory with a 17 percent or 18 percent of the total membership
return. That's so ludicrous it's a denial of basic democracy.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Ulrich. Time has
expired.
Our next presenter is No. 7,
Richard R. Benoit. Is Richard Benoit here? Thank you, sir. Do you have copies
of your presentation or just an oral presentation this evening?
Mr. Richard Benoit (Private Citizen): No. Since
everything's going to be recorded, I didn't feel that I had to type it.
Mr. Chairperson: That's more than fine. You may
proceed when you're ready.
Mr. Benoit: Today I wish to express to you my deep
and sincere opposition to Bill 45 and especially the proposed amendments to The
Teachers' Pensions Act, in particular, the fact that, in general, it tends to
implement the famous or infamous Sale report regarding teachers' pensions.
With a few exceptions, I
categorically oppose this report and this proposed bill because it does not
address the question of a long-term funding solution and/or a plan for
long-term funding, therefore flawing the entire process and not addressing the
foundation fundamental for a sound, long-range plan. This plan is not, in my
opinion, a long-range plan. It is, as we Catholics would call it, a period of
purgatory for retirees during the next 10 years with, however, not even the
promise of a certain paradise at the end of this grilling period of
deprivation.
What I am still more
concerned with, however, is the plebiscite process. According to dictionaries,
a plebiscite and referendum almost have the same definition. I can't, for time
purposes, go into the exact differences so I will use both. Basically, being
very interested in politics and history, I cannot help but remember the Québec
referenda of 1980 and 1995 and, in particular, the latter one. In some ways,
the Québec separatist government of the time showed more respect to the total
population than our plebiscite did in regard to retired teachers and the Sale
report.
Firstly, a reasonable amount of time was provided for discussion and
information to the whole population by both the yes and the no sides in Québec.
Our plebiscite was a UPS or Purolator type, one which provided an extremely
short venue for reflection and dissemination of information. The Minister of
Education (Mr. Bjornson), in fact, told the RTAM board of directors at a meeting
summoned by him in February 2008 that all three parties–MTS, the government,
and RTAM–would have to agree to the Sale report or no action would be taken.
Secondly, both yes and no groups in Québec were allotted the same budget to
disseminate their beliefs and opinions regarding separation, therefore
attempting to a degree of giving both sides a balanced degree of funding. In
the case of the plebiscite on the Sale report, we have two organizations: the
MTS with an annual budget of millions of dollars, including a $500,000
political action fund, I'm told. Money was therefore available to reach its
membership and with letters, radio ads, newspaper ads, and many other forms of
publicity. RTAM, on the other side, with its annual budget of approximately $200,000,
could only afford one mailing to its membership costing approximately $6,000.
Is this providing a fair playing field? The answer is clear and obvious in my
mind: no.
Other factors also attempted
to ensure a semblance of democracy. There was little of this in regard to our
plebiscite, as we remember the plebiscite regarding the Sale report was nothing
but democratic. With the Québec referendum, separation was very close. The vote
in favour of not separating from Canada was quite similar to our plebiscite.
Had the percentage been reversed, Québec would probably no longer be part of
Canada, and a long period of national uncertainty and chaos would have
resulted.
In view of the above, the
federal government, with Mr. Dion as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs,
passed the Clarity Act, which clearly outlines for future federal governments
what a clear majority would be. It provides clear parameters for both the
federal and provincial governments in regard to what a clear majority is. This,
it must be said, has been accepted by most members of Parliament, except the
Bloc Québecois.
I
firmly believe that instead of deliberating Bill 45 the government should work
on a Manitoba clarity bill regarding future plebiscites, referenda in Manitoba.
Surely that clarity act would state that 52-48 is not–I repeat, is not–a clear
mandate for the government to go forth with Bill 45. In fact, the 52-48 vote is
a moral victory for all retired teachers who oppose the Sale report. It is a
call for further study and discussions regarding COLA, not the passage of Bill
45. There is not a clear majority.
As
RTAM received complaints from some members and other non-member retired
teachers about slow mail delivery of the plebiscite package, RTAM has surveyed
its members living out of province in Canada and the United States about
possible late receipts of ballots. RTAM has written the chairperson of the
Pension Task Force asking how many ballots were received after the May 26
deadline by BDO Dunwoody. We have had no reply.
Our survey is not completed.
However, to date, 54 percent of the 652 surveys have been returned. So far,
preliminary results show a significant number have indicated slow mail delivery
and believe they may have received ballots too late in the plebiscite-voting
process for a returned ballot to be received before the deadline. A total of
236 have declared such to us. One hundred and forty-nine declared late receipt
of ballots, mailed them, but thought that they would not have arrived before
the deadline. Sixty-six declared late receipt of ballots but did not mail them
as they thought the ballot would not arrive in time for the deadline, and 21
expressed concern that their ballots would not have arrived on time. Of those respondees, 194 volunteered their vote; 188 voted no and
six voted yes; 10 declared they did not receive a ballot.
These retirees may have been
disenfranchised. Some have expressed great annoyance. The numbers are
sufficient to make the slim majority slimmer. It certainly casts doubt on the
integrity of the plebiscite process and vote results. Of the other respondees who did not indicate late receipt of ballots and
who volunteered their votes, there was a similar overwhelming no vote. This
sizable no vote cannot be ignored.
So, therefore, one can also
not help but wonder why 6,000 members of the TRAF plan were disenfranchised.
This would certainly not have occurred had there been a clarity act. It would
have avoided this outrageous act.
Therefore, in conclusion, I
wish to emphasize that the plebiscite process was flawed deeply, flawed for
many reasons which I have listed. The interpretation of the results are still
more erroneous, results that some call a clear majority.
In fact, the process continues.
The hearings are set in the evenings, 6 to 12. For people of 75, 80 and 85–and
there were many last night with canes, and so on and so forth–is that a
reasonable time to call hearings?
The process is continuing.
Let's come down to earth and be realistic. There is no clear majority. On the
contrary, it is a very questionable one at the most. We definitely need a
clarity act to ensure that our province is operating in a clear, unbiased,
rational way. After the clarity bill, then let us review the whole process and
start anew, or, better still, how about working to find solutions for the long
term, trying to lead to a just and equitable solution that is acceptable by all
and dropping Bill 45? No one should be forced to accept a total package, and
instead we should all move to an acceptable solution by all parties.
Will you opt for the road not
taken and make all the difference, or will you implement Bill 45 and sacrifice
the present generation of retirees? Well, one element is very clear. The
Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba has chosen the road not taken–
Mr. Chairperson: One minute remaining.
Mr. Benoit: –and will pursue it regardless of what is
decided before September 15, 2008, and we will continue our march for justice
and equity until it is obtained. Thank you.
* (22:40)
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Benoit. Questions?
Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much, Mr. Benoit. I know
you've been a very hardworking and active member of RTAM, and we appreciate the
fact that you've been out for two days and have been waiting your opportunity
to have your say. Again, your comments are very telling. I think there is a lot
of frustration and a lot of concern of the way that the plebiscite was handled.
You
didn't mention, amongst other things, one of the things that I've asked is, how
much did it cost? The minister has guaranteed for the longest time that he was
going to try to find that for me and hasn't seemed to be able to get his finger
on that item yet on his desk. As soon as he does I'll make sure I have a good
look at that. That's the problem with this; is that it was done so shoddily and
it was meant to serve a political means.
We
certainly appreciate your comments and all the hard work you've put into this for
your organization. We hope that the government is listening to you and to the
other retired teachers, and even to the Manitoba Teachers' Society, which, you
know, they've also indicated that a lot of this is something that the
government has to solve. Appreciate you coming out.
Mr. Benoit: Thank you.
Mr. Lamoureux: A small point. You had indicated–I
know the deadline was May 26, 12 noon, that the votes had to be in. You
indicated that you put in a request for how many ballots were submitted after
that deadline and I understand you haven't received–and I suspect that if the
Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson) was able to, I'm sure he'd probably be
able to tell us how many were. I suspect the minister probably knows. Please
let me know if, in fact, you do not get those in the future. I think it's a
valid question that should be answered.
Mr. Benoit: I think it is certainly a valid question
and we have received no answer.
Mr. Chairperson: For the record, I just need to say
your name before you speak, so they know who's talking when. Please go ahead.
Mr. Benoit: I'm sorry–I think it is a valid question
and we have received no answer.
Mr. Derkach: Thank you for your presentation, Mr.
Benoit. I have a question with regard to the consultations that, perhaps, did
or did not take place between your organization, RTAM, and Mr. Ulrich. Has Mr.
Ulrich ever been consulted by RTAM or by yourself with regard to his expertise
and knowledge on the whole issue of COLA and the pension act, and his views on
Bill 45?
Mr. Benoit: Yes, that's a good question. I've been on
the RTAM executive for only two years. I can say that, in the last two years
that I've been on the executive, Mr. Ulrich has attended our two annual
meetings and has certainly spoken to clarify many items. Therefore, has RTAM
asked him to come and speak to the executive alone, or just with us, in the
last two years? The answer is no.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Derkach, a very quick follow-up.
Mr. Derkach: Yeah, with a quick follow-up. Mr.
Benoit, here's an individual, in Mr. Ulrich, who has incredible experience when
it comes to dealing with the pension fund. I think his record shows that his
experience is something that would benefit the Manitoba Teachers' Society and
also the government.
Do you have any idea why the
Manitoba Teachers' Society or the present government would not consult with Mr.
Ulrich in terms of trying to resolve an issue which, I think, is a numbers
issue, and which, I think, has to go beyond politics and to the welfare of the
people who are either in the teaching field today or who are retired?
Mr. Benoit: Firstly, I would like to agree with you
that Mr. Ulrich is a very knowledgeable person and a great resource person for
our province in regard to teachers' pensions. Now, why the MTS, and why the
government of Manitoba has not consulted him–or if they have, I don't know. If
they haven't, then that question, Mr. Derkach, should be asked to both the
government and the Manitoba Teachers' Society.
Mr. Chairperson: We don't have time for an additional
question. I'm sorry. Thank you very much for your time before us.
Mr. Benoit: Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Now calling Anne Monk, No. 8 on our
list. Is Anne Monk with us here this evening? I see you have copies with you.
We thank you for that.
Ms. Anne Monk (Private Citizen): I might be a little
over 10 minutes.
Mr. Chairperson: You may begin when you're ready.
Ms. Monk: Mr. Chairperson, honourable Minister,
committee members. I'm a retired teacher and a director of the RTAM board
currently serving as vice-president, pension committee chairperson, and Pension
Task Force representative. Formerly, for 10 years 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.
Retired teachers have been
failed. They find they have been failed by a system they thought was in place
to look after their affairs. Today, they continue to be failed by Bill 45. It's
as if we've been in a game of musical chairs and when the music has stopped,
the retired teachers have been left without a chair.
What do retired teachers
want? A fair, equitable and just resolution of the long-standing COLA problem.
The Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson) and the president of MTS have declared
the Sale report and Bill 45 a fair and equitable solution to the COLA problem.
These declarations do not make it so.
Slogans, sound bites and
tactics have abounded, but RTAM has done its own analysis with our professional
advisers. We find that Bill 45 is an unfair and inequitable resolution of the
COLA problem.
What is the fundamental
problem with Bill 45? The bottom line is that COLA is still underfunded. RTAM's suggested options for more significant long-term
funding resolutions have been ignored. Instead, we have gotten a funding
approach that is minimalist, piecemeal, narrow in scope and unbalanced.
The minister has also said
Bill 45 is the government's best effort. We can only conclude this is it, no
more. Why, after 20 years of unheeded warnings, can we not have a fair and
long-term fix?
Why is no long-term
resolution unfair? First, we paid in good faith for inflation protection.
Individual teachers have paid directly for COLA protection throughout the
length of their careers. Our modelling shows that, for example, my
contributions and earnings for COLA protection were ballpark $35,000. Others
have paid significantly more. Where's our return? This is what we mean. Mr.
Sale has said it is untrue when we say we paid for a COLA, but he dismisses
what we mean.
We weren't told we were
paying for someone else. Now when it's time for our COLA, we're told there
isn't enough money. You have taken our money and not fulfilled your obligations
to us. Some say you have stolen our money.
Second, Bill 45 is tantamount
to asking the current generations of retired teachers to bear the brunt of past
underfunding and inaction, and now the underfunding continues. An implied
social contract is being broken. This sacrificing of a generation of retirees
is unjust and unacceptable.
Some people have asked,
either naively or disingenuously, where was the TRAF board? During my tenure,
TRAF did its job, administered the plan according to the act and forwarded
actuarial reports with COLA warnings to those responsible for act changes, the
government and MTS. The sponsors of the plan took no action.
A further unfairness has
emerged in the recent plebiscite. Fifteen thousand actives voting on the COLA
of 11,000 retirees, who are most directly and immediately affected by changes
to the COLA provisions and do not have the ability to make adjustments, as
active teachers do, is offensive.
* (22:50)
Why is Bill 45 funding
inadequate? We have supported the change in the method of interest crediting to
the better-of method. It is a helpful piece, but it does not provide a
long-term funding fix. In the absence of more significant funding measures, it
is minimalist and piecemeal funding, mere tinkering, resulting in a minimalist
outcome for retired teachers. How minimalist is the funding? Mr. Sale said his
funding recommendations would result in a two-thirds COLA in the first year.
Not achieved.
Does this not lead to questions
about the credibility of the Sale analysis? The achievement of a two-thirds
COLA is very uncertain and is very dependent on low inflation and high
investment returns. Only a 52 percent of CPI COLA on average annually is
projected by the actuary. With respect to the reserve account, one of our
professional advisers has called the concept shocking. No contribution increase
makes the recommendations too narrow in scope. The continuation of the subsidy
of the actives' contribution shortfall and the MTS prohibition on the use of
surplus for the COLA problem makes this unbalanced.
How does the government have
the temerity to support prohibition of the use of surplus by retired teachers
when there is a scheduled transfer at the civil service of $145 million to
their indexing account?
What is needed? More
significant lump sum funding and/or a long-term funding plan. The Sale report
offers no credible plan for this. Too few options were considered. There
appears to have been intransigence and in-the-box thinking by the plan's
sponsors. A multitude of options are available, many examples used by other
provinces. For example, B.C. has a memorandum of agreement with a transition
period for achievement of a financial plan. Nova Scotia has a memorandum of
agreement with objectives, principles and implementation policies and
mechanisms. A new COLA plan for retirees tied to funding levels was agreed upon
but existing retirees were left on the old plan. The government put in $142
million. Where's the plan for Manitoba?
What does RTAM propose? RTAM
believes that the fairest thing to do is implement the better-of method only
untied to other recommendations. We think this is reasonable. After all, the
better-of is using, in part, earnings on our past contributions and is a
catch-up bridging measure to adjust for the fact that the COLA account assets
have been undercredited, especially in recent years.
Then we propose there be a commitment to good-faith discussions on long-term
funding.
No movement toward a fair and
long-term solution will lead many of us to conclude that we should go the
two-tier route. If this is what active teachers want, go ahead and conclude
this deal with them, but strike a different deal with us. Fix the underfunding
of the actives and give us our proportional share of the surplus or give us our
money back.
What is wrong with this
province? It is a lack of good-faith leadership by the government and MTS. The
government is letting its financial self-interest bias it against its
obligations as a plan sponsor. It has been getting away for years with inaction
by following the technicalities of the COLA provisions in the act. The
technical continues in the Sale report. However, parts of the analysis and
argumentation are based on specious premises and historical revisionism. The
foundation of the report must be questioned. Some of our advisers have called
the report amateurish. I cannot help but believe that we have been disrespected
and patronized.
Yes, this is a complex matter,
but, to use a favourite quotation of my father by John Kenneth Galbraith,
complexity is a technique to avoid simple truths. The simple truth is retired
teachers have a moral case, and we are justified in our sense of injustice.
Mr. Chairperson: One minute remaining.
Ms. Monk: You have a moral obligation as sponsor of
the plan. Where are your moral compasses? It is time to fulfil your moral
obligations by doing the right thing for 11,000 retired teachers. Governments
in civil societies respect and perform to their commitments.
A final comment. If you
insist on enforcing your authority on us on the basis of a 52 percent yes and a
48 percent no vote, especially when the integrity of the vote must be
questioned, as some out-of-province retirees believe they have been
disenfranchised by slow mail delivery, do not expect us to think you have any
moral authority in doing so. After this vote you cannot ignore the legitimate
interests of retired teachers.
Thank you for allowing me
time to present my views.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.
Mr. Schuler: Ms. Monk, first of all, thank you very
much for staying here all of last night and tonight and waiting your
opportunity to have your say. I know you've been very, very active on this
issue and have worked very hard on behalf of retired teachers.
If I can just take 30 seconds
and also thank you for being a great teacher of mine years ago at Elmwood High
School. I guess I would say I can thank you in part for me having the opportunity
to become a member of the Legislature, or members opposite can blame you. It
depends on which side you come from.
There are just some things
that jump out at you. On page 5 you put: where are your moral compasses, and I
guess that's very telling. It's a very sombre presentation that you made and
it's hard-hitting, but I think it gets to the point. It's probably time for the
government to pull the groups together respectfully and use a moral compass.
When we come out of this, the minister who is sitting at the end of the table
and has been listening, we hope he hears you, and appreciate that you came out
and for all of the work that you've done. Perhaps the government is hearing.
Mr. Lamoureux: Quick question. On page 4 you are
saying that maybe what we need to do is have proposed that there be a
commitment to good faith, discussions on long-term funding. Who would you
envision sitting around the table to try to deal with the issue of long-term
funding?
Ms. Monk: Well, there is the Pension Task Force. I
see no reason why the representatives of the government, MTS and I would
include RTAM, why intelligent, reasonable people cannot sit down and operate in
good faith and come to a just and fair resolution on this issue.
Mr. Lamoureux: Do you feel that there is adequate
representation on that particular board from the Retired Teachers' Association?
Ms. Monk: Well, we have been given a chance to sit at
the meetings, and we haven't been given a vote. We don't have a voice. We don't
have a formal vote. No, I do not believe that we are full partners, and I think
on an issue like this we should be regarded as full partners in the
discussions.
Mr. Lamoureux: Finally, the plebiscite itself, you
make reference to it at the very end. If you were to just provide a very short
opinion in terms of the value of the plebiscite to the process, how would you
do that in, like, 30 words or less if possible.
Ms. Monk: Well, I don't know the value of the
plebiscite. I think that the government and MTS were probably looking for
confirmation of their approach on Bill 45 and, despite the fact that there's a
slim majority, I would say the massive no vote, which was probably unexpected,
was a repudiation essentially of the approach. I would say it's only logical to
conclude that the 48 percent no vote was largely composed of retired teachers.
I do not believe that this large constituency can be ignored as a result of
this vote. It has given credibility and support not only to retired teachers
but to the positions of RTAM and the approach of RTAM.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your time
with us this evening.
Next presenter, No. 9, Karen Boughton. Thank you for bringing copies of your
presentation with you. You may begin when you're ready.
* (23:00)
Ms. Karen Boughton
(Private Citizen): Thank you. Mr. Chairperson, Mr. Bjornson, and members of
the committee. I stand here tonight to say I am very unhappy with what is
happening to us as retired teachers. It is a sad day in Manitoba when the
legislative committee hearings for seniors in Manitoba have to be held from 6
till midnight. That I consider to be abuse. We all know about the crime in this
city. How do you account for putting people in their 70s,
80s, and 90s in danger? How
do you account for putting the same people at risk when they probably have
difficulty driving at night, and their very limited resources, due to the lack
of COLA over the last nine years, have to pay for extra transportation in order
to attend and have their presentations heard?
On
the same note, what about the people who have to come from out-of-town, pay
their gas, probably accommodation and extra meals, with the same kind of COLA?
Madam Vice-Chairperson in the
Chair
One
more thing before I get to my topic. Where in the world is the care for seniors
that was printed about in the 55-plus section of the Free Press on
Monday, June 30, when, quote: the Manitoba government has also pledged to do
its part to expose and reduce the incidence of elder abuse when Healthy Living
Minister Kerri Irvin-Ross voiced its support for Elder Abuse Awareness Day on
June 9, saying, Elder Abuse Awareness Day is an appropriate time to promote
respectful, intergenerational relationships. In order to develop more
age-friendly communities in Manitoba, we must all recognize that elder abuse
happens and work together to develop solutions to address it.
I
guess those were pleasant words to say because the same day her government was
passing the first reading of Bill 45. When I attempted to speak to someone from
MSOS publication, I got pretty much the same rhetoric. We decided we would not
support the retired teachers.
We also have half-truths and
non-truths. One example, the Free Press of July 17: MLA public hearings
on a plan to give retirees a pension hike. At issue is a bill that offers
retired teachers a cost-of-living increase worth two-thirds of inflation.
That's not enough to lift the retirees out of poverty, say officials of the
Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba, a group that has lobbied
relentlessly for pension improvements. However, the Manitoba Teachers' Society
says the cost-of-living hike doubled what was on offer previously and
represents sustainable, long-term solution to the pension kafuffle.
What's wrong with this
article? This bill does not offer any increase. This bill strips one-third of
the benefits we have paid for our portion. It reduces our COLA from a full COLA
we have paid for and are not receiving, to two-thirds COLA that we had
disagreed with back in the 1980s and paid more than
60 percent more to fund a full COLA. The difficulty came when the government
and MTS did not attend to the fund that should have been put in place by the
government when the actuaries warned them of this fund needing attention.
Yes, we paid our share of
that money. That money now sits in account A and I understand that it is quite
a large sum. I've decided not to say the words. We believe that half of that is
ours and our COLA sits in the notional PAA account. So it's all in the same
bag.
The two-thirds that is being
promoted by government, MTS and the press will not be met, even in the first
year, if we had endorsed this report. Instead of the 0.71, we would receive
1.44 of the CPI, and that is not near the two-thirds that we were promised,
even in the first year. Neither is the fund sustainable as both the government
and MTS keep saying. The true fact is there is no long-term funding put in
place and that's what RTAM has been requesting.
The correct part of this
article is that there are many retired teachers living below the poverty level
because the government and MTS named in The Teachers' Pensions Act have not
attended to their part of the fund and are paying as you go.
I could say a lot more about
that article, but I don't wish to take the time. But we as senior, retired
teachers have been totally without a voice that can be heard in the media or
anywhere else, and just try and get a letter from a retired teacher published
in any media.
I agree we have been
relentless. Would you people not be the same when you find you cannot access
the thousands of dollars that have been taken from you, that was put away for
your old age? I have been called relentless myself. I have been told I say things
rather plainly and pointedly, and I agree. This is my senior years' financial
stake that I have paid for and that I am talking about.
I'm
not going to give you the details of my teaching because it takes time, but I
will tell you that at one time my superintendent asked me if I would count the
hours I spent as a resource teacher because he wanted to know if I should be
taken off recess duty. I counted them, what I put in in a day and what I had
been doing and what I would probably be doing for the rest of the year. I added
up those hours. I divided them by eight, because eight's a working day, and
when I got finished, I would have two to three weeks a year off. Mine isn't the
only story like that. There're thousands of them.
I
would like to say some things about the retired teachers' representation. We
are given nominal representation on the Pension Task Force; nominal, as we have
seen, on the plebiscite issue; also on the TRAF board–the representative is
appointed each year–and we're not even mentioned in Bill 45.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
I
have been in the Legislature when Heather Stefanson, Education critic–it was
2006 and 2007–endeavoured to put a bill through the Legislature giving RTAM one
permanent representative on the TRAF board, and the government would listen to
the reading and then they would talk the time out. This year, Ron Schuler,
Education critic, again attempted to have one permanent member on the TRAF
board, and, again, the government would filibuster until the time was out.
Does
this not seem actually serving abuse to seniors who are intimately involved
with what is being done as much on their behalf as on the behalf of active
teachers? When the legislation for The Teachers' Pensions Act was written,
retired teachers had no organization, so they couldn't be mentioned in that
bill.
Mr. Chairperson: One minute
remaining.
Ms. Boughton: All right. We
are organized now and we can be put in the bill, but we're still not mentioned.
I wanted to talk about the
plebiscite. I think it has already been talked about, but I do think that we do
need more representation. As has been said here, we should be able to sit down
and talk together, and if we had that representation, possibly we could do
that.
I wanted to say that the
active teachers, roughly 15,000 in all, versus the roughly 11,000 teachers who
were given the opportunity of voting. Now, consider the massive resources that
MTS has had to devote to their plebiscite campaign. Alongside that, the retired
teachers were only able to send one letter and then simply it was talking to
members and members to members.
* (23:10)
Mr. Chairperson: Order. I'm afraid we've reached the
10-minute mark, but leave of the committee as per normal? [Agreed] Thank
you. Please continue.
Ms. Boughton: I would like
to say in conclusion: a government is known by how it treats the most
vulnerable. I would like to leave it there. I have left out a lot of my
presentation. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Boughton.
Questions.
Mr. Schuler: Before I begin the question, can we
accept the rest of her presentation as read and it be placed in the record? I
mean, it's quite extensive and unfortunately there just wasn't enough time.
Could we have leave for that?
Mr. Chairperson: Leave has been requested. [Agreed]
Thank you for that. Question.
Mr. Schuler: Just so you know what that means, the
entire report will be put into the Hansard.
On your last page, you put a
sentence in, and you know, these are really troubling. We're all human beings
at this table, and when I read these kinds of things, it really troubles me. I
was mentioning to one of your colleagues in the hallway, I went home last night
and it wasn't easy getting to sleep right away because I do carry my job home. I
do take what I do seriously.
You put in here: My
government is abusing me and other seniors. That's a very strong statement to
make, and we've heard it a lot over the last two days. It bothers me. I mean,
it bothers me on a very human level, and you know, we're alumni from the same
school division. I have teachers in the gallery here who impacted me and served
me well. I'm here, and I can thank my teachers in large part because of that.
So I want to thank you for
coming out, for making the presentation, for the hard work you've done on
behalf of your organization. I know it's been tough on you, and would you like
to reflect on that statement? My government is abusing me and other seniors.
I'll allow you to reflect on that if you'd like.
Ms. Boughton: Because we
are finding it more and more difficult each year, each week, as we see prices
go up, and where do we go? Can we stay in our own home? Can we afford dental
bills? Can we be able to do this?
We
had a grandson pop in on us the other day. Our grandsons are 24 and 26. This
young fellow who's had a bad accident came in on one foot at 1:30 last Tuesday
morning, needed his car fixed before he went back, got it fixed and picked up
the phone: the bill's more than I thought it would be. Can you help? We should
be able to help, at our age, for the work we have done, without having to
ponder. We had to look at each other and think this out, as people married 55
years do. You tell by the look what's going on and, finally, we–yeah, we can do
this. But we shouldn't have to struggle with that. We've both been
professionals. We've both worked hard, and I feel I was promised a COLA that's
going down, down, down, and where do I go from here?
At
the same time, I look at the representatives we have in government and it hurts
me to come here and dump on you. It does, because I consider you fine people.
You are trying to do a job, and it's tough going. It really hurts to feel that
we have to have a conflict over this and I wanted you to know that.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you
for your time with us this evening.
Ms. Boughton:
I have a presentation from my brother, John Carroll, who is ill and wasn't
able to come. Can I leave it with you?
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you
for that. With the committee's willingness, we will add this to the official
record and copies will be provided to each member. Is there leave? [Agreed]
It's No. 93 on the list. John Carroll can now be crossed off as a speaker. It's
now a written submission.
Mr.
Lamoureux, on a–
Mr. Lamoureux: Just, I guess, committee business.
There were two presenters: the Manitoba Teachers' Society's and Mr. Ulrich's
presentation. I'm wondering; there would probably be value to also put those
into Hansard because I know they didn't read their presentation nowhere
near its entirety. If the leave of the committee would be to have those put
into Hansard also for public record, I think it would be important.
Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave of the committee?
[Agreed] Thank you for that as well.
Committee
Substitution
Mr. Chairperson: Also, very briefly, we have a
substitution. I'd like to make the following membership substitution effective
immediately for the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development
meeting of July 22, 2008. For the PC caucus, Mr. Faurschou now sitting in for
Mr. Derkach. Very good.
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Schuler, on a–
Mr. Schuler: Can you just read the two names of the
individuals who will also be read into the record? It was Mr. Ulrich and Mr.–
Mr. Chairperson: And Pat Isaak was the other one, I
understood.
Mr. Schuler: I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you. That's
really good. I didn't quite catch it.
Mr. Chairperson: Good. Thank you for all of that
everyone.
Next potential presenter,
Keith Boughton.
Mr. Schuler: Can I just, while Mr. Boughton is making his way–
Mr. Chairperson: You may, Mr. Schuler.
Mr. Schuler: Thank you. Could we have Madame Ferré's presentation also read into the record? I mean, she
put a lot of work into it, and I think I mentioned it looked more like a
Cabinet brief than a presentation. Could we also have hers read into the record
as being presented?
Mr. Chairperson: Is there
leave to have that presentation, as well, accepted? [Agreed]
Thank you, Mr. Boughton, for both your patience and
for bringing copies of your presentation. You may begin.
Mr. Keith Boughton (Private
Citizen): Mr. Chairperson, members of the committee. I've been a teacher, a
principal and clergyman now for about 45 years. That sort of says something of
my background, and you've heard from my wife just recently, like the last
speaker. She's been on the RTAM board for two years and we've been immersed in
RTAM business. So I'm fairly well up to date on how it goes.
This is a moral issue; it's a
justice issue, and I think you probably could make a real case for a legal
issue. That, of course, a lawyer would have to decide.
Justice or, shall I say, lack
of justice, is at the heart of this matter. In the movie Smokey and the
Bandit, Burt Reynolds and his friend are being pursued by the U.S. federal
marshal, and the marshal's car was being demolished piece by piece, and the
marshal states, what we have here is a total disrespect for the law. Well, law
and justice are supposed to go together and most often they do.
However, for today's retired
teachers who entered into full co-operation with the government in 1977 when
The Teachers' Pensions Act was constituted, they are now discovering to their
sorrow that they paid good money for a full COLA. They are now seeing their
hard-earned money siphoned off; first, to help pay the COLA of earlier retired
teachers, and, secondly, I put it this way, stockpiled for retired teachers 10
years from now. Since 1977, logically, the number of retired teachers has
increased. If we say starting in 1977 until that act was put into effect, there
were no retired teachers in this respect, it's the starting point. It's a
bright, shiny new pact between government and teachers to work together.
Now, jump from that day to
today. There are approximately two-thirds, two-fifths to three-fifths
relationship between retired teachers and active teachers moving toward
equality in numbers. Schools are closing. Fewer teachers are being hired and I
think as the costs go up, probably classes will get bigger. I see it presently
as being 50-50.
* (23:20)
It seems that the government
and the Manitoba Teachers' Society have not caught on to this fractional
representation. The government and MTS have the ability to have X number of
representatives on the various committees and boards. The retired teachers,
nearly 11,000 of them or so, whatever the number, are given one speaking
representative. The president of the RTAM board can be there, but only one can
speak on the TRAF board, one retired teachers' representative, and that's by
appointment and not their own.
It's time for a change. It's
time to reconstitute the act of 1977 so that the business of retired teachers
is discussed, whatever committee or board it's on, that they are equally
represented and have equal voice. Up to this point, they do not have. The act
of 1977 was written for that day and time. It was a good act. Now, in 2008,
it's time the act was updated to bring the reality and justice of this time.
Now, what has this to do with
the plebiscite? If there had been equal representation at all boards,
committees, equal government and MTS and retired teachers, I very much doubt
we'd even be here this evening. This matter would have been worked out in a
fair and equal manner with all three parties involved. Instead, the government
and MTS have simply been giving retired teachers lip service only. Times are
changing. It is time for the act to be updated fairly and equally to deal with
today's reality. Is this being done in this new Bill 45, I wonder, or is it
still back in the 1977 time with the government and MTS as the only players in
the game?
The plebiscite shows a result
of 52 percent in favour, 48 percent opposed. Now, that to me, as sort of an
onlooker because my wife has been involved, is surprising. I would have
expected the result to have been 75 percent in favour and about 25 percent
against. I would have expected the active teachers to be mainly unaware and
uninformed and taking most things for granted as far as their COLA and pension
are concerned over this year and the next ten years, but, obviously, that's not
the case. Was it that there are more active and retired teachers actually being
more attentive to what's going on and being up to date and affecting this vote?
Whatever the case, the vote 52 percent for and 48 percent against, it's not
enough of a margin for a clear majority. It's not enough for the government to
be saying yes toward this bill; it can be covered by that vote of 52 percent.
The changes that retired teachers are speaking about as they present this bill
and as they object to this bill, should be heard.
Amazing, though, amazing, so
little time given for votes to be returned, forms sent out in the province,
beyond to other provinces and even further afield, and the further you send
them, the longer you should have the reply deadline. It would seem that this
was not sufficiently thought out. It would seem also, as you've heard many
times now in the last several days, that a number of teachers sent their votes
in my snail mail, as Peter Warren would call it. Those votes just didn't make
it and these people then were disenfranchised.
Fifty-two percent in favour,
48 percent against. In a usual election, 50.1 percent would carry the day, or
if 66 percent is required for a majority, then that's it. So, of course, 52
percent is why this result is proceeding. However, I would believe that the 48
percent opposed, considering all the barriers that they experienced, are
telling us that this is a very iffy result. To me it would say, and does say,
let's have another look at this matter. Let's slow it down and bring both sides
together in equality and discuss it in a fair and just way.
I've heard through last
night, and again tonight, the idea from people speaking, time after time,
working together, but that's not happening. That's not happening, and it should
be. Fifty-two percent for and 48 percent against. Is this result sufficient
substance to penalize today's retired teachers for the next 10 years in terms
of COLA?
You at the table, members of
this Legislature, know as well as we do. We were speaking and we know that
there will be no real improvement in COLA. There is no guarantee set down. The
government has made no effort to go into long-term planning, and I think really
they must see this as important if this fund is to continue over a period of
years. Fifty-two percent, 48 percent against, is this result enough to deny
today's retired teachers equality and justice? Fifty-two percent and 48 percent
against, is this enough to deny today's retired teachers use of their own
contributed money?
This system that is in effect
today no longer works–52 percent for and 48 percent against. I say let's get
equal representation all the way around, get together, work together and fix
it, and start doing that now. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
Mr. Chairperson: Ten minutes on the dot. Well done,
sir. Questions?
Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much, Mr. Boughton. I'd like to thank you for coming forward. I know
you've been very active on this issue as well, and your presentation, like all
of those seemingly before, raise very serious issues. Someone asked me, they said,
do you ever get bored? I mean, it's always the same thing, over and over again,
and I have to tell you, it's not. Everybody brings something new to the table,
and it's very telling.
I'm
going to just quote one sentence out of your presentation and it really
is–again, I find it disturbing. I'm just going to read it to the committee:
this is senior abuse on a grand scale as well as a trip down the road toward
poverty, where some have already travelled in this province due to lack of the
COLA they paid for. Now that's a very strong statement. I don't think there's
anybody who's sitting at this committee that isn't affected by that kind of a
statement. I want you to know that, as we move forward, certainly I, myself, as
one legislator, will be having that in the back of my mind.
Again, we appreciate you coming out, waiting hour after hour, day after day,
for your opportunity to present. If you want to just reflect on that for the
committee, I'm sure we would appreciate it.
Mr. Boughton:
Actually, when I was told I had one minute left, I started missing a few
things out, and my wife had already spoken on that so there was no need to
repeat it from one family. Everybody's really up in terms of abuse these days.
A lot of it's real, yes, and some of it isn't real, and you have to sort of
figure out one from the other. I'm not a very high ideal person to be speaking
about abuse. Where things are wrong, let's correct them, but let's not see it
where it isn't happening.
But
yes, I think especially, say, with class 1 teachers and the low salaries they
had, and now retired and no real chance for a lot of them to add anything to
it. I think, yes, there is abuse there.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you,
sir, for your time with us this evening.
Mr. Boughton:
Thank you.
* (23:30)
Mr. Chairperson: Another
quick substitution. I'd like to make the following membership substitution
effective immediately for the Standing Committee on Social and Economic
Development meeting on July 22, 2008: For the NDP caucus, Mr. Dewar, Selkirk,
for Mr. Chomiak.
That
done, we now call Wayne Hughes. I see you have copies.
Mr. Wayne Hughes (Private
Citizen): I do.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for that. Mr. Hughes, you
may begin when you’re ready.
Mr. Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, Mr. Minister,
committee members. Rather than read my introduction, I'd just like to suggest
that if there's one thing this committee has shown me is that I would perhaps
now prefer to be a rural member or a French-speaking member, and my rear end is
particularly telling me that.
One thing you do need to know
is that I am a retired teacher and both my children are teachers. So I am
speaking to you from the point of view of both the present plan and the future
of the plan. I don't want to take money from my children, but I do feel that I
have some legitimate areas to claim as part of my retirement.
A little over three
years ago, my presentation to the Legislature on Bill 48 focused around the
adequate COLA funding and the representation of retirees on the TRAF board.
Unfortunately, both of these issues are not solidified and, as well, a number
of new developments do not particularly bode well for the future of the teacher
pension plan.
Over the past three years, I
have become increasingly involved with RTAM, first as a member of the pension
committee and later as a member of the RTAM board. The learning curve has been
particularly steep, learning about our pension plan. It has also been somewhat
of a roller coaster ride, going from hope to disappointment to frustration and,
finally, to anger. The amount of political posturing, lack of integrity, the
omission of information, as well as misinformation that's been talked about
substantially, the blaming and the lack of respect for retired teachers has
been absolutely astounding.
When we, retired teachers,
both as an organization and as individuals, say no to something that will give
us more money, one would think that a reasonable person, a logical person might
say, perhaps we should look at this proposal and see if there's something that
might be wrong with it. But no, that isn't what happened. Instead, retired
teachers have been told to accept all or nothing. They've been called to
meetings and told that they will blamed. They've been left out of discussions
and then told that it'd be a hurried plebiscite which wouldn't be binding, and
finally, be shown a piece of legislation that is apparently on the fast track
with committee hearings at a time when many people are not available. Little
wonder that retired teachers are upset, yet they are consistent in their
opposition to the actions of both the government and their former organization,
MTS.
The
approach of RTAM has been consistent and supported by its members. It is time
for an equitable solution to the COLA problem. Bill 45 does not accomplish a
fair resolution. It is time for long-term funding solutions, or at least a plan
for long-term funding solutions. Bill 45 does not accomplish that. In fact, it
reverts back to the original plan after 10 years. I would call that no plan at
all. It is time for ensuring that the current generation of retired teachers
are not sacrificed. Twenty-plus years of inaction, or insufficient action, is
certainly enough. Our RTAM concerns have been well known. Ten years is too
long, especially if it means no opportunity to discuss long-term funding. The
two-thirds COLA cap is unfair when we paid 60 percent. We don't need to go into
that more.
Here's a new one. The composition of the Pension Task Force is a concern and
I'll be talking later about that. Creation of a reserve account is really a red
herring. Come now, you know there's not going to be any money for a reserve
account in the PAA. Delaying attention to a contribution increase to address
the underfunding of active teachers' future pension promise is really
inadequate.
Bill
45 has 14 amendments but only three of these amendments are a result of the
Sale report. Why then was it so important to accept all or nothing? Equally
important are the recommendations in the Sale report that are not included in
Bill 45. The five-year review suggested in the Sale report is not part of the
bill. That was recommendation No. 6. There is no provision for creating a PAA
in the provincial share of the fund, recommendation No. 7. Bill 45 does not
address the insufficient contribution range mentioned in recommendation No. 2.
Rather than address the problem, the bill sets out a process that seems to be
far too political and lacking in expert advice that I'll talk about later.
The point of these
omissions is that the Sale and the government requirement of accepting the
total package was not necessary and was obviously only a tactic to get RTAM to
submit to the power of the government and MTS. Shame on you.
When
RTAM didn't endorse the total package and the blaming of RTAM didn't work,
there was more planning and strategizing by MTS and the government. So now we
have a meeting of the Pension Task Force to inform RTAM that there will be a
plebiscite; no discussion, no input, no opportunity to give the information to
the members, decisions to exclude certain members that we've already heard of,
tight time lines. I won't go into it any more, but an advertising campaign that
would make you proud of. In terms of utilizing professional staff at MTS,
half-page ads in the newspaper, ballots couriered out but still too late to
mail back, professional services being hired to conduct the services, and all
of this paid for by the government.
The
result you've already heard: 497 votes difference. We believe that the majority
was so slim that the government has no moral authority to proceed.
Unfortunately, with this steamroller coalition of government and MTS, most
likely a vote of 50 percent plus one vote would be enough for them to have
acted.
The
remainder of the presentation looks at the concerns I have about the Pension
Task Force. Recommendation No. 8 of the Sale report spoke of the need to
explore the possibility of making changes to the pension plan through
regulation instead of requiring approval of the Legislature. When Mr. Sale
presented this recommendation to the RTAM board, he was quite emphatic that it
would be for minor changes, and, in addition, he stated that there would be
ample discussion on those areas that would be suitable for regulation.
Bill
45 grants the significant power to the Pension Task Force which will allow it
to recommend contribution increases. Why is this a problem? When I saw that
particular amendment, I wondered what was the written or defined mandate of the
Pension Task Force. So I e-mailed TRAF saying: I would be interested in
receiving any information you have on the Pension Task Force. This would
include their mandate, composition, representation and reporting structure. I'd
also appreciate a list of current members. I did receive a prompt reply
indicating that my request was forwarded to the government and MTS. I then
received a second reply from TRAF saying that I could make my request at the Minister
of Education's (Mr. Bjornson) office.
Apparently, no one at TRAF, MTS or in the civil service wanted to answer this
particular query. Why? After two e-mails to the minister's office, I received a
reply.
Mr. Chairperson: One minute remaining.
Mr. Hughes: You see the reply there. The key points
for me are that the Pension Task Force is not legislated, and it's responsible
to no one. The membership varies and has no requirement to include retired
teachers who are responsible for about 50 percent of the money.
This ad-hoc committee is
going to be a legislated committee with a 10-word definition included in the
act, which I've included, impose a very complicated decision-making process
that gives effectively a veto to both the government and to MTS. As a plan
member, I would hope that the contribution rates would be decided by a group
that has a fiduciary responsibility to the plan and make use of expert advice.
Why not?
I also wonder if Mr. Sale
would consider a change in contribution rates as being minor change suitable
for regulation. Again, shame on you.
* (23:40)
Mr. Chairperson: Order. We've reached the 10-minute
mark.
Mr. Hughes: Thank you for listening.
Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, but were you completing–
Mr. Hughes: I have. There's a little bit more in
there, just a summary. That's okay; you can read it.
Mr. Chairperson: All right. Thank you very much for
that. Questions?
Mr. Schuler: Can we just accept the rest that wasn't
read as read into Hansard, and it can just show there? [Agreed]
Bill 45 is a very inadequate piece of legislation that is
being rammed through and will have long-lasting ramifications on both my
pension and the pension of my children. Unless there are significant changes to
Bill 45, I suspect you will continue to hear the concerns of retired teachers.
As I said at the beginning of this presentation, it is time for a fair and
equitable resolution of the COLA problem; it is time for a long-term funding
solution or at least a plan for long-term funding; it is time for ensuring that
the current generation of retired teachers are not sacrificed. Twenty plus
years of inaction or insufficient action is enough.
Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much, Mr. Hughes, and I
know you've worked very hard on all of this. You have spent a lot of time in
these hallowed hallways lobbying for something that you believe very
passionately about. Because you've been so involved with this–you know, I've
asked other presenters–use some of that wisdom and knowledge that you have.
Where would you like to see
us go forward, assuming that the government is even open? I'm probably a little
too jaded to give you my opinion, but assuming that the government would be
open to some kind of a compromise or mediation, where would you like to see
this go, and how would you like to see it proceed if it ever did?
Mr. Hughes: I wonder why I suspected that that might
be a question. You have to meet in order to have discussions. Right from the
outset, RTAM has maintained, let's get the parties together. You heard Anne
Monk talking about that. Let's discuss and agree on what the problems are.
Let's explore the possible solutions. Let's investigate the other jurisdictions
regarding the provisions that they have. Let's decide on some processes for a
solution, whether it be stepped or not, but let's make some short- and
long-term solutions.
What has happened? MTS
presidents–you know what? There's been frequent mention of Ms. Isaak. She
doesn't deserve all the blame. The previous president is equally to blame. But
they have been saying discussions are over and they will not happen. Pension
Task Force chairs have said there's no reason to meet. The Pension Task Force
chair is, in fact, an employee of the MTS, an employee of the MTS reporting to
the president. Isn't that a conflict? Tim Sale refused to discuss the long-term
solutions and only found one area to improve the PAA, interest crediting. But
there are many other solutions that are available and they wouldn't discuss
them. It needs to get back to the discussion table. We need to treat each other
with respect and we need to get by this power-mongering that has been going on.
Mr. Lamoureux: There have
been, actually, a few presenters that have made reference to Mr. Sale. One in
particular I thought was getting fairly emotional to the point in which it was
the issue of politicization of the process. One might argue that by calling it
the Sale report, you try to give distance between the government and the report
itself by calling it the Sale report as opposed to the NDP report, so it's an
issue, then, of credibility, politicization of the process.
I
would ask, in terms of do you believe that Mr. Sale was the most appropriate?
If not, who would you have liked to have seen in an ideal situation in that
spot?
Mr. Hughes: Thank you. Right at the beginning I said
there was hope. When Mr. Sale was appointed, I was hopeful. I know he does have
skill in a number of areas. But when I started hearing the reports of how the
Pension Task Force hearings were proceeding, and the things that were being
discussed but, more importantly, not allowed to be discussed, and the way that
some of the recordkeeping was happening, I began to have great concerns about
it and realized that this was just another simple political process.
Who should have been
appointed? It should have been a person with some expertise in pensions. There
are many, many people around. Perhaps it had to come from out of province, from
some of those other jurisdictions that have solved the COLA problem. Take Nova
Scotia. Take B.C. Those are the kinds of things that most likely should have
happened. We spent tons of money on a plebiscite. Why didn't we spend some of
that money on bringing in some outside consultants and experts who could help
us?
Mr. Chairperson: Regrettably, we don't have time for
another question and answer. Thank you very much for your time with us this
evening, Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Hughes: Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Next name we will call is Dan Turner.
Is Dan Turner–there he is, very good. I see you have copies. Thank you for
that.
Mr. Turner, you may begin
whenever you're ready.
Mr. Dan Turner (River East
Transcona Teachers' Association): Thank you very much. Members of the
committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be with you here this evening.
My
name is Dan Turner and I am the president of the River East Transcona Teachers'
Association. We are the second largest teachers' association in the province
and I represent over 1,800 teachers, hundreds of those retired. On behalf of
those 1,800 teachers, I am here today to show my support for Bill 45. I've made
an effort in recent months to present the various positions that have come out
of both RTAM and MTS to our members. I've spent many days in schools talking
with teachers, active and retired and I can most definitely say that the Sale
report and Bill 45 has the overwhelming support of teachers in the River East
Transcona Teachers' Association.
It is important to note that
RTAM does not speak on behalf of all retired teachers. I have spoken to many
retired teachers. Those who have studied the positions of both RTAM and MTS are
undoubtedly in support of increasing their COLA, as would be possible through
passing Bill 45.
The basic fact is we did not
put enough money into the pension plan to pay the current benefit and
especially not enough to pay a full COLA. Another important fact is that a
guaranteed full COLA has an astronomical cost of over one billion dollars, and
that number is simply unreasonable.
So what happens if we were to
raid the basic benefit to make changes to the COLA? In a few years, what we
won't be able to afford is not a COLA, but the basic benefit itself. Will
retired teachers agree to cut their benefits? My guess is no. What will happen
is either massive contribution increases for active teachers, cuts in benefits
for future retirees and increase in retirement age or some combination of those
factors. I hope that as you consider Bill 45 you will think not only about
retired teachers but also the thousands of teachers counting on our pension
plan into the future. Bill 45 is fair. Bill 45 is reasonable and Bill 45 has
the support of 1,800 members of the River East-Transcona Teacher's Association.
In continuation of my
presentation, I would like to address some points that were brought up
previously in speakers that aren't part of my written presentation, if the
committee would so indulge me. One point I would like to mention is that I want
my pension to be there for me when I retire, but I'm also at a stage in my life
where I have mortgage payments and a young family to raise. Before I came here
this evening, I did have the opportunity to tuck in my three kids before bed
and, as my wife asked me as I walked out the door, are you serious, a meeting
at this time of night? I said, yes. I'm sure that everyone's been there before
who's been in that position, so.
But one of the things I want
to address is that, while I understand and even sympathize with the
disappointment of retired teachers about the COLA, the most important thing to
me and my colleagues is our basic pension benefit. It's really unfortunate that
teachers in the 1980s and 1990s
were told that their COLAs were guaranteed when they were never guaranteed.
It's also unfortunate that people making decisions about the pension plan 20
years ago improved the benefits without paying for those improvements with
contribution increases.
* (23:50)
RTAM has said that they want
to take the money from their COLA, from the account that pays the basic
benefit. If there's one thing I've learned in the last few months, it is that's
a recipe for disaster. I may not get a COLA when I retire, but I've appreciated
the fact that my organization has been honest with me about the need to put
money aside to supplement my pension. As hard as that is financially at this
stage in my life, I'm making my best effort to do that. But I expect everyone
to make protecting my basic benefit an absolute priority, and I completely
support Bill 45 because it balances that priority with making improvements for
retired teachers immediately. Pension plans are about trusts, and I trust that
MTS and this government will not let me down.
One of the things I teach my
students is how important it is to take responsibility for your actions,
especially when you make a mistake. One thing has become very, very clear to
me, and that is, people made mistakes, big mistakes. From everything I've read
and heard, the people who made those mistakes are not taking responsibility for
their actions.
But I came here to talk about
honesty and integrity. It's not that I think the numbers and the money aren't
important. I followed this issue closely, and I understand completely the
financial problems that our pension plan is faced with and what is necessary to
improve and protect the financial status of our plan.
What has troubled me more
than any of that is how RTAM and its members have personally attacked my
elected leaders. The e-mails and the letters that have been published and
widely distributed in the past several months are not only disrespectful, they
are quite shameful. I would never accept that type of behaviour that I've seen
from my students. So I felt compelled to come here and tell you how
disappointed I have been to see that that type of behaviour has happened.
One of the things that I'm
very proud of is the fact that my elected leaders at the Manitoba Teachers'
Society did not engage in that type of behaviour. I'm sorry that financial
mistakes were made, and I'm willing to do my part to help make our pension plan
secure and sustainable. I hope that this government does the right thing and
passes Bill 45, but there's nothing that I can do to present information to retirees
who did not receive information that was correct, ultimately.
I think an important point of
note is, we've heard many speakers, just here tonight, talk about the fact that
if this bill goes through, their pension or their COLA will be reduced. I think
that if I were in that position, I would agree with that. I wouldn't want my
pension reduced, but, in fact, this legislation will double the COLA for those
retired teachers. I hope that the people listening to my presentation this
evening will understand that. This legislation will provide a doubling of their
COLA. Any increase to me or not supporting an increase doesn't seem like the
right position to take. So any group opposed to doubling their COLA should
question their position. I think that that would be the most important thing
for an individual in that case to do.
I think that it's important
to note that there are some important demographic factors to consider when you
look at all the issues surrounding this. Today there are 1.4 active teachers
for every retired teacher. Early retirement was a benefit improvement that
occurred in the 1990s. Until September 2005, there
was no contribution increase to pay for the improvements like early retirement.
Twenty-five years ago, a teacher could be expected to teach and contribute to
the pension plan for 35 years and collect a pension for 20 years. Today, the
average teacher retires at about 57 after working for about 30 years, and
because teachers are living longer, they are collecting a pension for 30 years.
As a result, teachers are paying in for a shorter period of time and drawing a
pension for longer. For nearly two decades, teacher salary increases were below
inflation while full COLAs were being paid out to retired teachers. So the money
paid out for COLAs was greater than the money coming in. Combine that with
increased life expectancy, and the COLA account has been drained.
What would it cost to pay for
a full COLA? Active teachers would have to pay about 5 percent of their salary.
That's $3,000 a year more on top of what we're already paying. I know that
$3,000 a year for me buys a lot of diapers, a lot of bread, and a lot of milk.
The other fact of the matter
on this issue is that government would have to match that. The total cost of a
3 percent COLA is, as I mentioned before, $1 million.
Mr. Chairperson: One minute remaining.
Mr. Turner: This is unfair to active teachers and
unaffordable for active teachers and the government. The mistakes that were
made over the last 20 years cannot be the sole responsibility of active
teachers today.
Again, to reiterate in my
final minute, Bill 45 is fair, it is reasonable and it has the support of the
1,800 members of the River East-Transcona Teachers' Association. Thank you for
your time this evening.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.
Questions.
Mr. Schuler: Mr. Turner, thank you for coming to
committee. Of course you represent the association where I use to be a school
trustee. Great to have one of my alumni here.
Mr. Turner: Your name's on my contract, Mr. Schuler.
Mr. Schuler: Yeah, I think I signed it. That was a
great moment, by the way. Probably one of the nicest things as chairman of the
board was to sign the contract of new teachers, right up there when you sit on
the podium and you watch grade 12 graduates come down the aisle. I always had a
tear in my eye when I saw them and it's always a pleasure to sign new
contracts.
We particularly want to thank
you for coming and I have great understanding for someone who has to leave
their home after they've tucked their family into bed, their children. We
certainly appreciate the fact that you've taken the time and with great
credibility you presented your case. I certainly appreciate and I think the
committee does, that you took this time to come and make the presentation.
With the entire issue, you've
probably not had the opportunity to hear as many presenters as others of us
have. One of the things that has come forward is that there wasn't enough
information, for instance, when the plebiscite was held, that there wasn't
enough consultation given, enough chance or opportunity for people to access information.
You mentioned that you went
through River East and you tried to present both sides. But are there some legs
to that argument that there wasn't enough time for people to get all the
information for the plebiscite because of people on holidays, that kind of
stuff? It seemed to have been a fairly short window. Could you just reflect on
that for the committee?
Mr. Turner: I can't speak in regards to the time-line
issue. My responsibility as president of the teachers' association, elected by those
1,800 members is, when an issue comes out, my responsibility is to take the
issue to my members, to have them look at the sides of the issue that
ultimately–there are sides on this issue, without a doubt–present those sides
in a fair manner, in a non-biased manner to our members so that they can see
the information. We did that, we talked to our members.
When I say that Bill 45 has
the support of 1,800 members, not one member that we spoke to in a school upon
hearing information from us on all sides of this issue, not one member was
opposed to Bill 45. Even to me, it's quite surprising that that level of
support was garnered once the issues were understood because there is a lot of
information. That's our job as elected leaders, to present that information to
our members so that they can make the most educated, logical decision that they
are capable of making. I think that we did that.
In terms of the time line, I
think we had ample time for us to speak to our members. In other areas, I can't
speak for those areas but that may have been. I didn't have the opportunity to
hear those speakers who had those concerns.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Schuler, supplemental?
Mr. Schuler: Mr. Turner, you also made a very telling
comment. You said that chances are you won't have a COLA when you retire. Is
that an issue? Is that a concern for active teachers right now? Again, you're a
little bit younger than I am. Pension isn't the biggest thing on the kitchen
table discussion. There are other things that are more pressing. But when you
do talk to your membership, is COLA an issue for them?
Mr. Turner: I think what's
important, when I talk to our members about COLA, I think COLA is important.
What Bill 45 does is addresses that and puts into place an action plan that has
gone through a process where parties–they did meet, they did collaborate and
they did come together and come up with a reasonable solution.
One
of the comments that we heard here tonight about that was the fact about–and I
regularly heard it tonight–getting together and sitting down and coming up with
a solution. Well, that did happen. If you don't agree with what comes out of
it, it doesn't mean that you get to come back to the table until everyone
agrees with what one person says. I mean, as members of the Legislative
Assembly, that's how it works. You get together; you talk about it.
You'll talk about Bill 45 in
the House. You'll talk about a whole bunch of bills, and, ultimately, you will
sit around that table, and I don't know how often unanimous support of any
legislation gets, but that's ultimately what happens in the end. We will see if
Bill 45 gets that unanimous support. It will be interesting to see if it does.
I'll be definitely interested in hearing what happens on that vote.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Turner. Time for
questions has expired.
Just before we rise, I'd like
to remind everyone in attendance that this committee will also meet to consider
this bill on the following occasions: tomorrow night (Wednesday) starting at 6
p.m.; and then Thursday morning, July 24, starting at 10 a.m.
Finally, in the interest of
saving paper, it would be appreciated if committee members could leave behind
copies of the bill on the table so they can be re-used.
The hour being 12 midnight,
as previously agreed, committee rise.
COMMITTEE ROSE AT: 12:01 a.m.
WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS PRESENTED BUT NOT READ
As a retiree of some 18 years, I continue to be in
opposition to the implementation of the Sale report, as well as the plebiscite
process and the interpretation of the results.
As an employed Manitoba teacher for some 30 years, I
supported the pension fund and then-retirees while expecting similar support in
my future retirement years. While paying my fees, I anticipated those following
me to give similar support to my retirement years, including the full COLA.
I supported a full COLA while employed. I expect a full COLA
in my retirement. My retired colleagues now and in the future expect no less.
I also agree with John Sushelnitsky's
letter, Winnipeg Free Press, July 18, in which he questions the
scheduling of the committee hearings from 6 p.m. to midnight over a three-day
period. You have quite possibly eliminated the participation of many retirees
between the ages of 65 and 105, participation by the very retirees expecting,
and in some cases, very much needing a full COLA. How many seniors can sit for
that length of time? What has happened to research results indicating the
limited ability to concentrate on and absorb important information over a
prolonged period of time?
In conclusion, I and my colleagues expect a full COLA.
Thank you for the opportunity to be heard/read despite the
scheduling of the presentations.
W. Gary Lally, Retired
* * *
As I present this short but sincere plea for fairness, I
know that I am to be retired teacher No. 233 to speak to you. It is, therefore,
likely that you will have heard all of my arguments before; nonetheless, I
shall speak from the heart hoping to persuade you not to pass Bill 45 and
therefore relegate me to a future of poverty.
No doubt it has been pointed out to you that retired
teachers' pensions have already lost 10 percent of their purchasing power since
the year 2000 because of an unfair COLA. I shudder to think of a future pension
depending on a possible two-thirds cap on the cost of living that is not
guaranteed but is only a maximum if the fund could afford to pay it. As you
know, it is not able to do this now and likely will not be able to do in the
future as the government and MTS are not providing a source of funds to ensure
it. It appears that this two-thirds COLA depends on interest rates staying low,
but as I watch economic conditions in the U.S. deteriorate, I am filled with
dread. Our neighbours to the south, whom we generally follow into economic boom
or bust, are falling deeper and deeper into recession, and the chances of
interest rates remaining low are slim to none.
I ask you to be completely honest
as you consider yourself in the following circumstance. Imagine that you have
retired after a rewarding career on a less-than-luxurious pension of about
$20,000 a year, the average teacher's pension today. Now imagine yourself
receiving an offer of two-thirds COLA cap, maybe, if there is enough money in
the fund. If not, perhaps no COLA at all. You would accept this situation for
up to 10 years.
Sounds good, doesn't it? Honestly,
if this were your economic future, would you not be here tonight asking for the
full COLA teachers always believed they were paying for? We paid our teacher
contributions to TRAF believing that we were protecting our pensions and
therefore our future. Can you see that we are not going away? We, after all,
were the ones who taught you to stand up for yourselves when you know an
injustice is being done and you are not getting what was promised.
I am asking you tonight not to pass Bill 45. I am asking you
to seek further and come up with a better, long-term COLA deal. Thank you for
your attention.
Marilyn Huska
* * *
I am a retired public school principal with 30 years of
service to the children and parents of our province. Like many of my
colleagues, in addition to doing a professional job in the classroom, we also
gave unselfishly of our free time to volunteer as coaches in extra-curricular
activities ranging from athletics, band, chess, drama, debating, French, improv, leadership training, musicals, poetry, robotics,
and sewing, to name but a few. In my case, I coached basketball teams at both
the high school and middle school level for over 25 years.
When I reflect on all the extra help periods, co-curricular
activities, and coaching of extra-curricular activities in any given school
year, the volume of teacher volunteer hours invested in children easily exceeds
3,300 per secondary school. If a school division with 11 secondary schools paid
for this volunteer time, it would require at least three full-time teachers in
each secondary school and cost the equivalent of 33 extra teachers or
approximately $1,815,000 per year. Furthermore, this does not take into
consideration the many hundreds of hours that teachers volunteer for
professional development activities and organizations each year.
In my own case, I served for over five years on the
executive of the Manitoba School Library and Audio Visual Association,
including a term as president. I also served on the executives of the
provincial and St. James Assiniboia Council of School Leaders for over seven
years and on the executive of the St. James-Assiniboia Teachers' Association.
I think you will agree: the province of Manitoba and parents
of public school students need to be extremely appreciative of our teachers'
incredible dedication to their students. Every teacher volunteers thousands of
hours to help develop the character and citizenship of the students in our
charge. These teachers did not seek or expect financial compensation for their
significant volunteer service. That is why education and the teaching
profession in Canada are so highly regarded throughout the world. How is it,
then, that this well-deserved and time-honoured position of respect is being
undermined by the authors of Bill 45? Surely, it is not too much to ask that
the government provide adequate funding to ensure that retired teachers'
pensions are fully indexed against inflation.
According to Bill 45, instead of treating retired teachers
fairly and honourably, the government proposes to condemn them to a life
without adequate protection from inflation. Indeed, when Tim Sale developed the
original proposals for Bill 45, he refused to make predictions on the
investment returns beyond three years. Why does the government insist that Bill
45 must extend for 10 years? Moreover, the financial assumptions upon which
Bill 45 were based envisaged a world with stable inflation. Clearly, Mr. Sale
and his colleagues did not envisage a world in which the price of oil would
jump to $145 per barrel, of soaring flour and rice costs, nor in which the
ravages of the American housing and investment industries would cause much of
the western world's economies to slide into recession.
Throughout our careers, retired teachers believed that they
had negotiated and paid for a fully indexed pension. In our wildest nightmares,
none of us envisaged a financial situation in which our pension dollars would
be eroded at the rate of approximately 11 percent every decade. Many single
women teachers who retired over 20 years ago are now living below the poverty
line. This 10-year term will sacrifice an entire generation of retired teachers
to inadequate protection from rising inflation. Surely, everyone can agree that
this is not a just and fair reward from a society which enjoyed so many years
of dedicated service to its children.
If the government is operating in
the best interest of teachers, both active and retired, why does it insist on
an all-or-nothing strategy in Bill 45, especially over the continued objections
of 11,000 retired teachers? Why did it go through an expensive and inconclusive
plebiscite when it always had the authority to enact changes to The Teachers'
Pensions Act? Why were 6,000 deferred teachers who made contributions to TRAF
not even given an opportunity to vote in the plebiscite?
The Retired Teachers' Association
of Manitoba has lobbied the government for over three years to provide a
written commitment to negotiate a more equitable and long-term solution to the
inadequately funded pension plan, especially the cost-of-living allowance,
COLA. This inadequate funding of the PAA account, which generates the COLA, has
existed for over 20 years.
Why must Manitoba teachers continue to be satisfied with one
of the worst funded pension plans in Canada? Is this the party of social
justice, the party that Ed Schreyer and Gary Doer have made the envy of other
provinces? If so, what is fundamentally wrong with a negotiated solution that
everyone can live with? If there truly is an impasse in negotiations, why not
use the time-honoured Manitoba mediation process to resolve this labour
dispute?
Bill Cann
* * *
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the
opportunity to meet with you and to share my views and concerns about Bill 45.
Before I begin, I would like to preface my remarks with a
brief introduction.
My name is Matt Kawchuk and I
currently reside in Brandon. I am a retired teacher who devoted 39 years of
service to education as a classroom teacher and principal of schools in
southwestern Manitoba from 1954 to 1993.
My professional career began with teaching a multi-grades
class of 41 grades 7-9 students at the Oakwood Union School in Oak Lake in
1954. After four years at Oak Lake I moved to Russell and taught mathematics,
physics and physical education at the senior high level for four years, and
then was appointed vice-principal of the new Major Pratt Collegiate and
subsequently became the principal of it for the last four years of a total of
12 years in Russell. In 1970 I accepted the principalship
of Virden Collegiate Institute in Virden which had a grades 9-12 student
enrolment of 705 and a staff of 37 teachers. In 1988 I accepted the principalship of the K-12 Elkhorn School in Elkhorn for my
final five years of teaching.
After 39 years of a diverse and challenging career I retired
in 1993. Currently I am the recipient of a TRAF pension, Canada pension and the
Old Age Security pension. Unlike the Canada and the OAS pensions which are
indexed regularly to counter the effects of inflation the TRAF pension has been
diminishing in value in the past number of years. The annual inflation rate has
been higher than the annual pension increment. It appears that the present
Manitoba government does not deem the retired teachers of Manitoba worthy of a
fair cost-of-living increase in their TRAF pension.
I well remember that in 1977 the Manitoba Teachers' Society
under the leadership of George Strang negotiated with
the government, and a full cost-of-living increase was enacted in legislation
by former Premier Ed Schreyer. This feature in the teachers' pension plan was
at a cost to each teacher.
At the same time, the Teachers' Society declined the free
government disability plan and formed its own disability plan funded by
teachers in exchange for a full COLA. This resulted in the teachers paying 60
percent more into their pension plan so that they would receive full
cost-of-living pension increases upon retirement. For a number of years the
retirees did benefit. For example, when I retired my TRAF pension was indexed
annually by a full COLA for several years. However, the increases in the past
three years were 0.2, 0.4 and 0.65 percent, respectively. This is far below the
annual rate of inflation.
Meanwhile, the civil servants received full COLA and they
had their disability plan offered to them at no cost.
If the proposed Bill 45 were to be enacted, it will limit
the amount of COLA to a maximum of two-thirds of CPI and to an inflation cap of
5.33 percent on an affordable basis for the next 10 years. Simply said, the
annual increases of the TRAF pension will be below the actual rate of inflation
for another 10 years without any opportunity to renegotiate. For many retirees,
and perhaps for myself as well, this would be the situation for the balance of
their lives. I deem this to be a simple case of discrimination and abuse of a
specific group of the elderly, namely, the retired teachers of Manitoba, of
which I am a member.
Ladies and gentlemen, you can see why I support RTAM's opposition to Bill 45 which implements the Sale
report package of COLA and COLA funding recommendations. In essence, it would
deny the retired teachers a fair annual COLA for which they prepaid during
their working years.
On the other hand, the Manitoba government is proposing to
index the pensions of the members of Legislature to a full COLA by Bill 37. I
ask, where is the justice? If pensions of the members of the Manitoba
Legislature are worthy of being fully indexed against annual inflation and
affordable, then shouldn't the TRAF pensions of the retired teachers of
Manitoba be treated in a similar fashion? I'm sure you will agree that the
retired teachers deserve better treatment than what Bill 45 proposes to do,
don't you?
Something that I soon learned in teaching and as an
administrator is that if you treat people with wisdom and empathy, people will
treat you with respect and have confidence in you. I trust that you will
demonstrate wisdom and empathy toward the retired teachers' pension dilemma,
and that you will act in an ethical and just manner when the time comes to vote
on Bill 45.
Thank you for this opportunity to share these personal
concerns and views with you.
Matt Kawchuk, B.Sc,
B.Ed.
* * *
I oppose Bill 45 based on the
recommendations in the Sale report for the following reasons.
As a teacher, I contributed for
33 years to TRAF. The information that I received over the years was that I
would receive a reasonable pension with a COLA.
Because the Manitoba government
was party to the fiscal blunders and inaction that transpired in and since the 1970's, I find myself in a position where I either have to
dip into my savings or return to work to bridge the increasing costs of living.
The recommendation in the Sale
report, which limits my COLA to two-thirds CPI (only if "somebody"
determines that there are sufficient funds), is UNACCEPTABLE. After
contributing for 33 years, there is no guarantee of annual security just to
keep abreast of increasing costs.
If this bill is passed, we, the
retired teachers of Manitoba, will continue to live in financial insecurity;
some of our members, especially female teachers will live in near poverty.
Steve Pawlychyn
* * *
I agree with RTAM’S view that a change needs to be made in the method
that the PAA account is funded. The best would be to have the fund invested in
the same account as the general account to get the same rate of interest as
that of the general account.
Short of that the interest crediting for the PAA account
should be changed to the better of method or total fund returns or fixed income
returns whichever is greater.
I also feel that a two-thirds cap on COLA is unfair! I wonder
how the members of the Legislature would feel if their COLA was capped at
two-thirds.
For too many years retired teachers have depended on the
wishes and control of the members of MTS and the government because there was
no retired teacher’s voice on TRAF. For the last 19 year RTAM has tried to do
its part to amend the problem.
Thank for allowing this opportunity to speak.
Frank Basiuk
*
* *
As a woman who taught for many years in Manitoba while raising a family
of four children, I am appalled at the proposals by Tim Sales for remedying the
cost of living features of the Teachers’ Pension Act. Mr. Sales, being a former
NDP cabinet minister, cannot claim to be unbiased in the views he expresses in
his report. Many retired teachers and active teachers are members of the NDP
party and we expect the government to find a more immediate solution to the
absence of a full COLA than capping it at two-thirds and not guaranteeing even
that. Only your government can solve this problem and we are asking you to take
immediate steps to provide more money to the PAA portion of the pension and not
to wait ten years before doing anything further about this question.
We paid for 100 percent COLA many years ago when we agreed to fund
completely our disability insurance payments, which many other employees did
not. At that time we were told that we could expect a 100 percent cost of
living adjustment to our pensions when we retired and for many years we got
that. In later years our cost of living allowance has been much less than the
current increase and in the face of ever rising prices many retirees are
finding their retirement dollars worth less and less.
The government doesn’t appear to have a desire to put forth a solution
for the long term. The plebiscite results are no argument to implement the
Sales Report. Many retired Manitoba teachers across Canada were not given time
to get their votes recorded and the active teachers were told by the MTS to
vote yes without question and many, too busy to research the question thoroughly,
probably did so. Furthermore a 48 percent no vote should be a wake-up call to
the government. In this regard also many retired teachers feel that the MTS no
longer represents us and that we should have our own representatives on the
Pensions Board and on any task forces dealing with pensions. Our RTAM
representatives should have input on some of the questions arising from this
bill and not just having to depend on MTS to represent our interests.
When I phoned the Clerk’s office to indicate my desire to speak to the
committee considering this bill I was told that there were over 200 names on
the list. Then recently I received a call stating that I would have to be at
the Legislative Building at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, July 21 and then I would be told
when to come in and speak. With only 24 speakers being heard from 6 p.m. to
midnight each day that means another trip to Winnipeg if one wants to appear in
person. This strikes me as government arrogance. It would appear that the
government is discouraging anyone, at least from outside Winnipeg, to speak to
this bill. Otherwise why could a schedule not be drawn up so each of us knows
exactly when to appear?
It is my sincere hope that the government will reconsider its position
on some of the issues mentioned above.
Respectfully submitted: Frances H.
Fraser
*
* *
When I put my name on the list to
speak to the committee considering this bill I fully intended to do so in
person. But then we were informed that to get a definite time for our
presentation we would have to appear at the Legislature at 6:00 pm. on Monday
July 21 and at that time we would be told when we could appear which could be
the same day or more likely would be days away. I feel that this is grossly
unfair of the government. Surely with all your highly paid administrators in
Winnipeg someone could have drawn up a schedule from the names submitted and
informed each of us exactly when we were to appear. It would appear to me that
the government is not too anxious for anyone, especially anyone outside the
perimeter of Winnipeg, to speak to this bill. I personally find this an
abominable representation of the democratic process.
As to the bill itself which proposes to change the pensions'
act based on a report by Tim Sale, a former NDP cabinet minister, that fact
alone says it all. The report doesn’t deal with the main problem at all, a
problem that has been known for over 20 years. More money has to be put into
the PAA account to fund a legitimate COLA and only the government can fix this
delinquency. The government has a moral responsibility to protect seniors who
have served their province for so many years and who feel that in their
retirement years they deserve a fair cost-of-living adjustment to their
pensions as retirees in other provinces have and as most government employees
enjoy.
I taught in Manitoba for 33 years and distinctly remember
that at one point we agreed to fund our disability insurance costs ourselves
while many other government employees did not, but had their costs shared by the
government. In exchange for this we were told that we could expect a full
cost-of-living adjustment to our pensions when we retired and for many years
this was the case. Now the Sale report promises nothing and sets a maximum of
two-thirds of the cost of living. What we received last year would hardly pay
for the gas that a couple of trips to Winnipeg to appear before your committee
would require.
The plebiscite in which 48 percent
of the respondents voted no was a joke. In the first place many retired teachers
did not receive it in time to get their vote in within the short time they were
given. Many active teachers had no idea of the ramifications of the question
and the MTS, which is supposed to represent retired teachers, as well as active
ones, told their members to vote yes without question. Most retirees feel that
the MTS no longer represents them fairly and we should have our own
representatives on the TRAF board and on any boards or task forces dealing with
pensions.
Only the provincial government can
remedy this situation and as retired teachers, who have served the youth of
this province very well over the years, we appeal to you to take a serious
second look at this problem and propose some remedies. Definitely do this
immediately, not ten years into the future when many of us will not be around
to enjoy the benefits of your ingenuity.
Respectfully submitted,
W. A. Fraser
* * *
I, James Reginald Schmall,
attended the Provincial Normal School at Tuxedo in 1955-56 and began my
teaching career in September of 1956 and taught in Manitoba for the next 20
years. I left the profession to become an insurance broker in 1976.
The teaching profession was experiencing difficult times in
those years with very low salaries; but one of the brightest areas of the
profession was their pension plan because we were always promised that the plan
was indexed to the Canadian cost of living and would grow with the prosperity
of the country. Even though I had suffered through the low salaried era, I
decided in 1976 that I would leave my pension in place, so that I would always
have something that was sound and invested wisely and would always be there for
me in my retirement years.
I didn't start drawing my pension until I turned 65 and
depended upon this to provide me with a good quality of life. I was amazed to
discover that the pension plan was no longer indexed to the inflation rate of
the country. In essence, I have taken a step backward in the last 6 years as I
will celebrate my 71st birthday next week. During these 6 years, my pension
buying power has eroded and it is no longer possible to maintain the same
quality of life that was promised. I have continued to work part time to
maintain the same standard. What will happen when I can no longer work?
The government of today has broken faith with the retired
teachers of Manitoba. We were promised an indexed pension many years ago–over
50 years when I began my career and the promise has been broken by this
government. I ask that you correct this wrong and re-institute the indexed
pension for all retired teachers of Manitoba.
Submitted by
James Reginald Schmall
* * *
What is it about trying to fix something that is working
well?
This idea of what is offered to the retired teachers with
this new legislation is not what it seems.
If we have a look at the 2004,
2005, 2006, 2007 and even 2008 cost of living, we would be losing with the deal
of that 66 percent.
What appeared in the paper was
biased because the MTS forgot to tell the journalist: "if the funds permit
it". This last sentence was forgotten or deliberately omitted.
I am definitely against the Bill presented.
Maurice Noel, Retired Teacher
* * *
By this time, you have heard these arguments ten-fold. But
in case you slept through them, here it is again.
The cost of living keeps going up, stretching the fabric of
our pensions to the point of rupture. Gas for cars and for heating has gone up.
By fall, electricity costs will receive a heavy increase. Food is more costly
and medications for our health continue to increase in price. Various health
issues for seniors multiply with age, and hence there are even more increases
in costs.
In 1977, civil servants and teachers put 10.2 percent of
salary toward pensions. While the civil servants’ contribution remains stable,
in 1980 teachers increased theirs to 16.1 percent, and shortly after, to 16.6
percent, making that an increase of 60 percent over the civil servants’
contribution to COLA. This amount was supposed to offset the difficulties we
are experiencing now.
To multiply the indignities to teachers, the RRSP
contributions we could make were subtracted from our pensions, allowing very
little of the funds to go in that direction. Of course, RRSPs were deducted
from our income tax, but pension contributions were not.
Why has the government not developed a plan to solve the
COLA problem, when other provincial governments have? Closing the door on
improvements, except for very modest ones, and continuing for ten years before
addressing it again makes me LOL! By ten years, we may be gone, but others who
are active now will face exactly the same issue then. Closing your eyes and
ears to the fact that funding is inadequate is not only unfair, when you
consider that we have already paid for it, but unacceptable.
We paid for inflation protection. We demand a better COLA
deal, and a long-term fix for a fair COLA. You must develop a plan to solve the
COLA problem now with better funding for the future.
Thank you,
Frances Kogan, BFA,
B.Ed., M.Ed.
* * *
Thank you for allowing me to put my views on the record
concerning Bill 45. I am sending this presentation in support of Bill 45.
First, I would like to thank the government for introducing this Bill. It is
the culmination of significant work by the Manitoba Teachers’ Society on behalf
of members of the teachers’ pension plan, both active and retired. The
commitment of this government to address this issue is appreciated.
My name is Mary Chalmers and I have been a teacher for 11
years. I am currently teaching at Ross L. Gray School in Sprague, Manitoba for
the Border Land School Division. I am also the President of the Border Land
Teachers’ Association. It is my belief that in supporting teachers, we build a
stronger public education system and our students will do better.
I am in support of Bill 45 as it balances the need to
provide retired teachers with a cost of living adjustment with the amount of
money that active teachers and the government would be required to pay for it.
The proposal could double the cost of living adjustment paid to retired
teachers this year. Without this increase, the retired teachers can expect a
0.7 percent. With this plan they can expect a 1.4 percent increase. These
amendments must be implemented as a package. It includes the checks and
balances that are necessary to ensure the pension plan does not run into
further problems in the future.
I understand that this planned increase will come at
no additional cost to active teachers, a concern for many of us. Today there
are 1.4 active teachers for every retired teacher; any additional costs would
be borne by the active teachers. The Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba
has asked for 100 percent COLA, this is simply not feasible. This would mean a
5 percent increase to every active teacher in Manitoba which in actual costs
would be about $3,000 a year more than we are already paying and the government
would need to match that amount. This is would be unfair to active teachers and
the government.
The simple fact is we need to make
sure that the plan is protected and safe for our future. Today the average
teacher retires at 57, after working for about 30 years and because teachers
are living longer, they are collecting a pension for 30 years. As a result,
teachers are paying in for a shorter period and drawing a pension for longer.
Bill 45 provides the necessary checks and balances, which
will provide for the feasibility of the COLA in the future. RTAM wants large
lump sum payments made to COLA. MTS believes that large lump sum payments and
transfers from the basic benefit will put the basic pension at risk for both
active and retired teachers.
In addition, there was plebiscite of all active and retired
teachers; the vote was 52 percent in favour of this package. This is a majority
of active and retired teachers in favour of the changes.
I ask you to implement Bill 45 as it provides an increase
today to the retired teachers, and provides the necessary checks and balances
to provide for the future of the plan and the future of active teachers.
Thank you.
Mary Chalmers
* * *
As I am unable in person, to
present my concerns regarding Bill 45, I do so via this e-mail:
I, Victoria Olchowecki,
fully support the Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba in its opposition
to Bill 45.
The Manitoba
government's failure to meet its obligations is a disgrace. Retired teachers
paid for inflation protection and have a right to expect that the government
honour its part in an ethical and just manner.
In my 38 years
as an educator, I worked with dedicated and caring teachers. Those now in their
80s and 90s taught at a
time when salaries were low and, with time away from teaching to raise
families, their pensions today are completely inadequate to meet the increasing
cost of living. To deny them full cost-of-living increases is disrespectful of
their years of service to the youth of Manitoba and unconscionable on the part
of the government. I note that MLA's considered full COLA important enough to
grant it to themselves. It is my expectation that the MLA's will give the same
consideration to retired teachers.
The plebiscite
regarding the Sale report gave me less than a week in which to respond and I do
not feel assured that my no vote was received in time to be counted. I live on
an island and have found that turn-around time for mail can be as much as three
weeks. This puts into question the validity of the vote results. The time given
was not fair, and, like justice, must not only be fair, but must be seen to be
fair.
I appreciate the opportunity to
express my views. I request that the committee and the MLA's be ethical and
just in their final decision.
Sincerely
Victoria Olchowecki
* * *
I am recently a retired teacher and I am concerned that
presently there is virtually no COLA available to retired teachers. In
reviewing the history of COLA the following information has come to my
attention.
Retired teachers have paid for a COLA. Teachers individually
have paid tens of thousands of dollars for inflation protection.
Without a guarantee or significant funding measures, the
existing generations of retired teachers are being asked to bear the brunt of:
·
the inadequate funding since 1977;
·
the inattention for 20 years that has caused the COLA problem to be more
costly to fix;
·
the inaction, despite actuarial warnings, of the two parties named in
the Teachers’ Pension Act who are responsible – namely the government and the
Manitoba Teachers’ Society;
·
and now the inadequate funding recommendations of the Sale “package” and
their implementation in Bill 45.
Our COLA is still underfunded. More significant funding
measures–ump sum funding and/or a long-term funding plan–are needed.
RTAM has not been insisting on a 100 percent CPI COLA as the
Sale report, MTS and the Government have declared. RTAM has stated that when
there is a commitment to long-term funding solutions, RTAM is prepared to
discuss reduction in COLA.
I support the RTAM proposal as follows:
1. For fairness and equity in the short term:
That only the better-of method of crediting interest to the
PAA (with a three year moving average backdated to 2005), without conditions
attached, be enacted now.
2. For fairness and equity in the
long-term:
That a commitment, with a memorandum of agreement, be made
to resume good faith discussions to deal with long-term funding solutions
and/or a plan for long-term funding.
With regards to the plebiscite, the government has no moral
authority to proceed with the implementation of the Sale recommendations based
on such a slim majority.
I am pleased that I have this opportunity to address my
concerns to the special legislative committee on Bill 45 regarding TRAF COLA
problems. I trust you will listen to these concerns and be willing to work with
RTAM to resume discussions to deal with long-term funding solutions. Thank you
for addressing this issue.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Pat Trottier
* * *
I cannot attend the hearing, but would like my submission
presented to the hearing.
I enjoyed my years teaching in the Manitoba school system
and am now retired.
I am deeply disappointed in Bill 45. A maximum of two-thirds
COLA is not what we paid for or were promised.
As well, waiting 10 years before having the problem reviewed
will only serve to build resentment and frustration and do nothing to solve the
problem.
The government needs to step up and take responsibility for
their portion of the agreement.
In order to do this, they need to find a long-term funding
solution.
Retired teachers have paid for COLA.
They deserve to receive what they
have been promised–100 percent COLA.
I don’t think that Bill 45
addresses the future needs of our present day teachers.
We all want qualified, hard working
and talented individuals to be in the classrooms, teaching our children and our
grandchildren.
This will not happen when young
teachers come to realize that Manitoba lags behind other provinces in the
benefits receivable upon retirement.
How can we encourage those wanting to enter the profession
when we feel that our government, present and past, is treating teachers
unfairly?
It is only the government that can make the law that can fix
the problem.
After 20 years of waiting it would truly be amazing if this
government showed the courage and foresight to work towards a solution to the
COLA problem.
Thank you for listening.
Beverley Finlayson
* * *
My name was on the list to make
a presentation to the Committee, but I am unable to attend (I can't afford to
stay in a hotel until my name is called). I would like my submission presented
to the hearing.
I retired in 1998 having taught
in Manitoba for 38 years. I was always assured by MTS, TRAF, and the government
that was in power that the Manitoba Teachers' Pension was one of the best in
Canada. Now I find out that it is the worst in Canada.
I guess they
were lying to me. Who am I to believe now?
Having read
Bill 45 and the Sale report, I know that they do not fix the problem.
Bill 45 and its
amendment only postpone and compound the problems.
Up to
two-thirds COLA means we could get zero percent some years. Ten years is far
too long.
Why am I
worried? My cost of living keeps going up. Food, shelter, transportation,
drugs, heat, et cetera, all keep going . The amount that I can purchase now is
considerably less than what I could purchase in 1998. In 10 years, what will my
wife and I have to do without?
I deserve 100 percent
COLA because that is what I was assured that I would get. I deserve 100 percent
COLA because I dedicated my life to teaching our young people in Manitoba.
Fix the problem
now. Retired teachers deserve to be treated like human being not second-class citizens.
Young people
entering the teaching profession in Manitoba need to know now that the Manitoba
Teachers' Pension has been fixed. We don't need them leaving Manitoba to go to
another province to get a good pension.
Robert Finlayson, Retired
Teacher
* * *
It is with deep concern
that we must protest Bill 45. As retired teachers living on a
fixed income the COLA is very important to us. We were promised so much
more than the government is proposing. A 10-year review is not feasible in these
swiftly changing times. There is no adequate or equal representation on the
Pension Task Force as retired teachers which is another serious drawback to
getting our views and needs aired and addressed. The need for significant new
funding and a long-term funding plan to make the PAA self sustaining is
imperative and should be addressed ASAP.
Thank you for your time and I
hope your consideration.
Donna and Vance Birnie
* * *
I have included my name on the list of presenters but will
not be able to attend the hearings. I am sending the following written
statement.
I am a retired teacher who has both taught and been in
administration in Manitoba schools. I have been closely following the debate
surrounding Bill 45. I have read Tim Sale's report and other pertinent information.
While I agree with the many arguments teachers have thoughtfully brought
forth to justify their position, I do not wish to allude to them here
for they have been well made.
It is my view however that one thought bears to be
repeated. It is one that educators instil in their students as do
parents in their children: responsibility, that basic value of being true
to your word, to your commitment. An understanding was achieved in the past
relating to COLA. It is only just that if changes must be made to an agreement
that both parties must agree to those changes. It seems that government is
prepared to enact legislation that has not obtained the assent of
both parties. One might argue that government has the power to do so. But I do
not think that power is the issue here. The issue is what is the just and fair
avenue of problem-solving. It is my hope, even further my
conviction, that justice and rational thought will be brought to bear so
that both parties in the end can say we have achieved consensus.
I thank you for your kind attention.
Respectfully submitted,
Georges Druwe
* * *
The current impasse between the MTS, government and RTAM
regarding the COLA clause in legislation for teachers" salaries is causing
great concern, particularly among the retired teachers. In the late 1970's, the always resolute and clear thinking George Strang negotiated the cost-of-living adjustment for
teachers in Manitoba. In return the Manitoba Teachers' Society members
agreed to solely fund their own long term disability insurance. With these
two agreements teachers correctly felt that they were protected against
inflation and ill health and this included protection into retirement. Now
the present government and the Manitoba Teachers' Society executive have joined
forces against retired teachers, calling a plebiscite which would ask teachers,
both practicing and retired to accept a lesser COLA than that negotiated and
agreed upon years before. The purchasing power of pensions is diminishing.
Many of those already in retirement were unable to pursue the academic studies
required of them to qualify for higher salaries and pensions.
In addition many women who took
years off for child rearing could never achieve maximum pension years. If in
addition they were/are single parents the situation is even more grave. The
current actions of the Government and MTS are nothing less than elder abuse -
directed at people who spent their lives with the youth of this province for
the benefit of this province. They did so with the understanding that they had
the support of both MTS and the government. Now this plebiscite, in which
retired teachers form a minority and cannot be fairly represented, is a
betrayal which turns their trust into a sham. There is much anger, frustration
and disappointment at the lack of progress in making improvements to the COLA
for retired teachers. Why would the MTS and the government try to force an
agreement via a plebiscite in the planning of which the RTAM were excluded?
Why not adopt what has been agreed
upon and continue to deal with the balance of the problems? In regard to COLA,
an enforced "up to two-thirds" agreement for ten years could indeed,
in the worst case, mean zero dollars for 10 years. At present the COLA paid to
Manitoba teachers both active and retired is among the lowest in Canada. In
closing I cannot improve upon the words of Tom Ulrich, a contemporary
of George Strang, and a man who from 1974 until 2004
was actively engaged in bettering the situation for the teachers of Manitoba. I
quote: "The Sale report appears to have been an attempt to achieve
preconceived objectives using misinformation and unfair restrictions to the
scope of solutions as justification for the recommendation."
With these words I close my statement in opposition to Bill
45.
Irene Legg - retired teacher
* * *
First of all thank you to this committee for the opportunity
to express my views on this important matter. My name is Sharon Orr and I
retired in 2002. I am a member of the Retired Teachers’ Association of
Manitoba. This e-mail presentation is to convey my concerns about the
plebiscite and Bill 45. I fully support the position taken by RTAM in regard to
the Sale report and the passing of Bill 45 in its present form.
First I would like to refer to the plebiscite. The fact that
RTAM had no input in its planning and implementation seems in my opinion
contrary in that Bill 45 deals with pension amendments and has a direct and
immediate effect on retired teachers. Also the fact that the media was informed
of its results before RTAM reveals another aspect of exclusion. For my part I
felt confused that MTS, who in my mind represented my best interests when I was
an active teacher, seems to have abandoned me as a retiree and followed another
agenda.
In regard to The Teachers’ Pension Amendment Act itself I do
feel positive that some steps have been taken in light of 20 years of neglect
(even after warnings about underfunding). However, I am still concerned about
two-thirds funding as I paid for a full COLA. Also a decade is a long time if
it means no chance of discussions to ensure significant measures for funding
pensions.
As a personal example of how underfunding of COLA has
affected me I have gathered some data to show how one important part of our
family budget has been impacted. This example literally and concretely
illustrates how the cost of living has risen in just one area. Living anywhere,
but particularly in Manitoba requires electricity and heat. As previously
stated I retired in June, 2002 and instead of using information for a partial
year I have compared my income and expenses for electricity and natural gas for
two full years-2003 and 2007. Then I looked at the income from my teachers’
pension. The majority of pension increases if any were usually a result of
income tax decreases and at the same time these changes were frequently negated
by other deductions such as group health. Even though electricity and gas
prices continued to rise my teachers’ pension did not keep pace. In the
foreseeable future these expenditures are to increase even more. Here is the
data.
From to 2003 to 2007 electricity charges increased by $65.97
or 7.83 percent, the natural gas charges increased by $117.43 or 8.35 percent
while during the same time my teacher’s pension rose by $57.75 or 0.03 percent
I want to emphasize that of course this is just one example
of a never ending increase in the cost of living. I am asking for a long term
solution so that my fellow retirees and I can have a fair, adequate and well
deserved pension to enjoy the rest of our retirement.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sharon Orr
* * *
As a retired teacher I am very concerned about the content
of Bill 45 and the process that brought it to this stage.
This bill is very unfair to
retired teachers. For years teachers made their TRAF contributions believing
that all the terms of their pension plan would be fulfilled. For many, living
on a pension that is not fully indexed is creating financial and emotional
hardship. Now having a proposed bill that legislates that we will never
be fully indexed, is truly unjust.
Delaying the implementation of this bill for 10 years does
nothing to solve the root problem. For years individuals with financial
insights have been asking for changes to be made. They have been ignored.
Although the government has the final say in how the problem is resolved, it is
critical that the government sit down with all the parties involved and work
out a plan for the future. It is absurd that the group with the most to
win/lose, (the retired teachers), did not have a vote on the Pension Task
Force, and in many situations seemed to be ignored in the ongoing process. It
is also inconceivable to think that a democratic government would push through
a bill that only had the support of 22 percent of all active and retired
teachers. This alone should cause the government to stop and reconsider its
actions.
I sincerely beg you to withdraw this bill, and to sit down
with elected representatives from each group: government, active teachers and
retired teachers. Together they should bring in people with financial
expertise, as needed. Relying on the input of one person (i.e. the Sale report)
is not wise for a problem of this complexity.
The people involved in the teaching profession, have played
and will continue to play a significant role in the development of our society.
Let’s ensure that they do not experience unnecessary hardship after giving the
best years of their lives to others children.
Sincerely,
Muriel Gamey
Neepawa, Mb.
* * *
I would like to speak in opposition to Bill 45. I can
bombard you with a barrage of facts and figures as to why all retired teachers
require a reasonable increase to their annual pension benefits but I won’t. I
ask of you several questions and if the answer if no to all or most of the
questions, I ask that you re-examine your final resolve to Bill 45.
Was your annual percentage increase
to your wage or pension benefit less than 0.783 percent?
Year Actual
increase
After tax increase
2002
.7%
.6%
2003
1.6%
1.1%
2004
.6%
.4%
2005
.4%
.3%
2006
.7%
.4%
2007
.7%
.4%
6 yr
average .783%
.533%
Has the increase of retired
teachers’ annual pension benefits kept pace with the increased annual cost of
living?
Could the after tax increase of o.533 percent to retired teachers’ pension benefits
continue to cover cost increases to services and utilities in the future?
Gasoline
40 percent
Hydro
rates 5 percent
Housing
60 percent
in 5 years
Natural gas, house insurance, MPIC, food, clothing, etc.
If your answer to these three question is no, then I
ask that you reconsider the final resolve to Bill 45, and that you throw in a
few more crumbs to those teachers who have done such a fine job of educating
you.
Syl Didur
* * *
I wish to submit this information
to state my opposition to the legislation in Bill 45 that is being
put forward. It is my hope that through this process the common person can have
his/her voice heard and that true democracy can take place. So, I ask
that you please truly listen to the concerns of the retired teachers in our
province. The Retired Teachers' Association in Manitoba does not have the large
organization of networking or funds available that the Manitoba
Teachers' Society has. Connection to all retired teachers is not
easily accessible as not all retired teachers chose to join TRAM upon
their retirement making the access to information from within our group
difficult. I do believe that when the results from the plebiscite
came out, one must look at the results as significant opposition to
Bill 45. The fact that the entire process was done so quickly and that many of
our retired teachers did not receive the ballots in time to place a vote due to
absence at the time indicates to me that done properly, the results against the
bill would likely have been greater. On the other hand, MTS with its funds and
greater access to its members were able to provide active teachers
with the information that they wanted them to hear. How fair is this I ask!
As a retired teacher in Manitoba
who has spent my whole teaching career in this province, I believed the
government promised me with a full COLA when I retired because all along I paid
more for this benefit. I am very disappointed in the solution which is
being supported by both MTS and this Government which will not even
guarantee me a two-thirds COLA . This legislation states up to two-thirds
COLA which could also mean zero! Furthermore this proposal also closes
the door to further discussions for a 10 year time period. That would mean that
I am locked into this situation for 10 years with no chance of bettering the
situation while my spending dollar slides against inflation. So I ask, who
benefits from this plan? Certainly not the retired teachers who paid even more
for our COLA than what civil servants pay for their two-thirds
and yet teachers are not even guaranteed that a two-thirds COLA will be
provided. Retired teachers spent their life working for the children of this
province and worked hard for many years and this is the how we are
rewarded for our years of service. The money we paid was paid in good faith and
now we are to suffer the losses because of Bill 45. With ever-increasing
inflation and lower interest rates on savings, this presents a hardship on
retired teachers.
I have great concern,
particularly for retired women teachers whose pensions are often quite a bit
lower than many of their male counterparts. Most of these women are widowed, or
married to someone who does not receive a pension and either because of the
lower income from their salary class as a teacher or due to the fact that they
were removed from the workforce for child bearing years, are receiving a lower
pension to begin with. As a part time, class 1 teacher who took years out of
the workforce to care for a young family my pension is very small to begin
with. To expect us to accept a lower dollar value for our money each year when
in fact we paid for a full COLA is totally unacceptable and I wish to ask this
government to vote against this legislation which will see the retired
teachers of the day being the losers and bearing the brunt of the problem
at our expense.
I would like to
see more discussion take place on this issue where a solution is
arrived at that does not place the burden on retired teachers who are living on
a fixed income. Other provinces have dealt with this situation where their
retired teachers have been treated fairly and I believe that this
government can also come up with a situation that will treat its' retired
teachers with the same respect and fairness that they deserve .
Respectfully submitted by,
Dorothy Strachan
Retired Teacher - Carman, Manitoba
* * *
I would like to register my concern over the
lack of respect the government has shown in respect to the agreement and
expectations that teachers of my generation, (now retired seven years) had when
we were paying into the pension fund.
Throughout my teaching career the TRAF pension
fund was touted as a “top notch” plan with 100 percent COLA protection, and
that is what we were paying for. Only in the mid 1990s,
I believe, did we start to hear about the concern that the COLA portion was
lacking, however this could be fixed with a change in the legislation dealing
with the TRAF. This legislation was not forthcoming and now in 2008 the
government wants to pass the Sale report which in my opinion is a sale all
right where the government is “selling” the retired teachers down the river.
We paid for a full COLA! Now we are being offered,
and asked to accept, a guarantee of “up to two thirds (two-thirds) of
inflation”. What kind of guarantee is that “up to…”?
Scenario: As a homeowner, I purchase and pay
insurance every year that is supposed to provide 100 percent replacement value
on structure and contents. A misfortune happens and my house burns down and
contents are destroyed. The insurance company, to whom I have paid my premiums
faithfully for years says, “We’re only going to cover up to two-thirds of your
losses now that you have had this misfortune.”
In my opinion this is a “breach of contract”.
The insurance company shirked on our agreement. Similarly the non-payment of a
100 percent COLA to the retired teachers of Manitoba when they have paid for
such coverage is also a “breach of contract”!
As retired teachers, on a proposed
reduced COLA “up to two-thirds of yearly COLA”, are we going to have the
privilege of showing our “teacher’s certificate” or “RTAM card” and benefit
from a 33 percent reduction in food purchases at the grocery store or gas
purchases at the service station? What about our ever increasing provincial
utilities (Hydro 5 percent for power and natural gas regular increases) – Do we
get a 33 percent discount on these bills that are provincially controlled?
All during my teaching years, I
personally, as did my colleagues, allocated extra funds to TRAF with the
expectations that we were going to benefit and be protected against inflation
20 and 30 years or more down the road. Now when we have retired we have been “sold
out” by the MTS and our provincial government who are advocating support for
the Sale report.
I thank you for listening.
Ian Heather
* * *
I am a retired teacher who provided 37 years of service to
the education of the children of this province. I am totally opposed to the
passing of Bill 45, which reflects the recommendations of the Sale report and
request that the province continue deliberations with the MTS and RTAM to
develop a pension proposal that reflects the interests and needs of currently retired
and future teachers.
I retired in 1997 fully expecting to receive a pension that
would allow me to maintain a comfortable lifestyle. Over my teaching career I
fulfilled my end of the pension commitment by faithfully contributing my fair
share to the pension fund and was of the belief that my government and
professional organization were ensuring that their end of the bargain was being
upheld. Much to my surprise, one short year after I retired, I began learning
that due to a problem with COLA, my pension would not be increasing at a rate
anywhere near yearly cost-of-living increases. Over the past 10 years my
ability to maintain my lifestyle has been increasingly challenged.
In the RTAM board response to the Sale October 2007 report
and in their subsequent news releases and articles, the RTAM has clearly
outlined the reasons why the report's recommendations are not in the best
interest of currently retired teachers. I fully endorse their findings. While I
will not take the committee's time to restate their findings, I strongly
suggest that government and House members give them careful consideration prior
to voting on Bill 45.
However, I have other concerns over the present situation
and the process that was used to bring us to Bill 45:
1. By moving ahead with the recommendations in
the Sale report, without giving significance to the concerns raised by RTAM,
leads one to believe that this government has little interest in the needs of
currently retired teachers. Their actions do not live up to the observation of
a former colleague that "with a government noted for its caring attitude
towards workers and its ideology based on fairness and social justice, perhaps
teachers will obtain the necessary improvements."
2. The author of the Sale report was a former
minister of this government and therefore I have concerns over bias towards
government needs as opposed to those who provided dedicated service to this
province. Why wasn't a totally independent person brought in to prepare a
report for the government on an issue that affects so many?
3. The initial COLA
document, developed and passed under a previous NDP government is being so
readily dismissed and not financially supported by the current NDP government.
It is little wonder that so many have lost respect and faith in our
governments.
4. Teachers paid 60
percent more for COLA than other civil servants and gave up benefits received
by other government employees in exchange for a better COLA, only to be
expected now to accept the same level or less of COLA.
5. The turn-around time
for the recent plebiscite provided inadequate time for retired teachers living
out of province or country to return their ballots. The plebiscite occurred
before summer break providing opportunity for all active teachers to respond.
Given this, it is surprising that the results of the plebiscite were so close.
6. Given the narrow
margin by which the plebiscite passed, it is alarming that the government would
move so quickly to introduce Bill 45 without taking the opportunity to
re-examine their position.
7. Most disheartening
to me is the position taken by the MTS and their willingness to "jump into
bed" with the government regardless of the concerns expressed by their
former members and colleagues. They, along with past and current governments,
had the responsibility to ensure that provisions for the COLA passed in the 1970s were being adequately funded. This did not happen.
One would have expected that the MTS would have worked co-operatively with the
RTAM to present a united front to ensure that the interest and needs of both
active and retired teachers were adequately addressed. Instead, the current
executive has been too willing to lay the blame on past MTS executives for not
responding to warning signs and on retired teachers for receiving what they
expected to receive.
I strongly request that this bill
be tabled for further study and that the government immediately examine and
address the concerns raised by RTAM in their response to the Sale report.
Respectfully submitted,
Astrid Michal (Mickey) Kuprowski
* * *
Je suis aussi mère célibataire. Ma fille est encore à mes dépends
puisque je l’ai eue à l’âge de 39 ans. Elle fait ses études post-secondaires et
travaille autant qu’elle le peut pour payer ses frais de scolarité.
Si je ne me fie qu’à mon plan de pension de la MTS pour vivre et pour
appuyer ma fille, cela devient une impossibilité. Lorsque j’ai quitté
l’enseignement pour des raisons de santé, mon salaire est passé de 63,000$ brut
à 28,000$ brut. J’ai dû prendre un autre emploi
pour combler le déficit. J’ai maintenant quitté cet emploi, pour des raisons de
santé aussi, et comme je n’ai pas encore 60 ans, je ne peux pas recevoir les
prestations du Régime de pensions du Canada.
Je me suis dupée de bien des façons en croyant que mon temps de retraite
serait enfin un repos sur le plan émotif autant que sur le plan financier. L’an
dernier, j’ai dû vendre la maison de mes rêves dans un beau quartier
francophone pour aller m’installer plus modestement ailleurs parce que je
n’arrivais plus à boucler seule les responsabilités fiscales. Maintenant, je
crois qu’il me faudra vendre cette demeure aussi car elle est vieille et elle
entraîne des factures toujours croissantes. En plus d’électricité, chauffage,
eau, téléphone et taxes foncières, il y de nombreuses réparations.
Vous n’avez qu’à considérer le prix de l’essence. Faire le plein est
passé pour moi (comme pour mes collègues à la retraite) de 60$ à 80$. Vous
pouvez voir que la meilleure des augmentations que vous m’offrez en fonction du
coût de la vie est encore insuffisante pour que je puisse dormir paisiblement
la nuit.
Le Projet de loi 45 vient ajouter à mon anxiété et à mes cauchemars.
J’ai investi 16,6 percent de mon plan de retraite durant de nombreuses années
pour avoir l’assurance d’augmentations en fonction du coût de la vie et j’ai
cru en la parole de mon gouvernement et de la MTS.
Je
vous prie, en mon nom personnel et au nom de tous ceux qui luttent pour
survivre, de rejeter le projet de loi 45 tel qu’il est maintenant écrit, de
bien réfléchir et d’avoir le courage d’offrir un projet de loi qui sera
équitable et juste pour les enseignants qui sont à la retraite à présent et
pour ceux qui le seront dans le futur.
Merci de
votre attention
Hélène
McCarthy
Translation
Madam/Mr. Chairperson, ladies, gentlemen, My
name is Hélène McCarthy. I am a retired teacher.
I am also a single mother. My daughter is still
a dependent as I had her at the age of 39. She is currently doing
post-secondary studies and works as much as she can to pay her tuition.
It is impossible for me to rely solely on my
MTS pension plan to live and to support my daughter. When I left my position as
a teacher for health reasons, my gross earnings dropped from $63,000 to
$28,000. I had to find another job to make up the difference. I have now left
that job as well, also for health reasons, and as I am not yet 60, I am not
entitled to receive Canada Pension Plan benefits.
I was wrong in many ways to think that my
retirement would finally be a time of rest from an emotional and financial
perspective. Last year I had to sell the house of my dreams in a beautiful
Francophone neighbourhood and move to a more modest house in another area,
because I could no longer pay all the expenses on my own. I now think I will
have to sell the house I am currently living in as well, because it is old and
I’m faced with mounting bills. In addition to utilities, telephone bills and
property taxes, there are numerous repairs to be done.
One need only consider the cost of gas. The
cost of a full tank of gas has increased for me (as it has for my retired
colleagues) from $60 to $80. You can see that the most generous of increases
you are offering based on the cost of living is still not enough to allow me to
sleep well at night.
Bill 45 has added to my anxiety and nightmares.
I invested 16.6 percent of my pension plan for many years in order to be
assured increases based on the cost of living and I believed in the word of my
government and the MTS.
I am asking you, on my own behalf as well as on
behalf of all those who are struggling to survive, not to pass Bill 45 as it
now stands, to consider the matter carefully and to have the courage to propose
a bill that will be fair and equitable for teachers who are currently retired
and those who will be retired in the future.
Thank
you for your attention.
Hélène
McCarthy
* * *
My name is Kristina Ellis and I am a grade 1 teacher in the
Pembina Trails School Division and a member of the Pembina Trails Teachers'
Association executive. I appreciate the opportunity to share my views on the
Sale report and the changes to our pension plan that are suggested in Bill 45.
I've been teaching primary French immersion for four years
and I must admit that my pension was not on the top of my mind when I started
teaching. I knew when I started that I was a member of TRAF and I also knew
that MTS looked after decisions about the pension plan. However, specific
questions or concerns regarding that pension plan never occurred to me until
recently as I became more informed thanks to my involvement in my local association.
I play an active role in my local association and I elect
MTS leaders who I trust to make decisions in the best collective interests of
teachers and in the case of pensions, in the best interests of both active and
retired teachers.
I'm sure you have heard many presentations already on the
question of teacher pensions, particularly in relation to the cost-of-living
adjustment paid to retired teachers. I will not go into the history of the plan
or the reasons for the current situation, which I believe have been agreed upon
by everyone. I do, however, want to discuss an issue that has been mentioned
repeatedly by RTAM and which I believe is not well understood. That is the
question of the new entrant shortfall.
When people talk of the new entrant shortfall, there is
often an impression that somehow retired teachers are subsidizing new teachers.
The implication is that if only new teachers were putting the money into the
plan that they should, we wouldn't be having these problems. I find it disappointing
that some people would seek to lay the responsibility for our current funding
problems on those who are least responsible, but that is exactly what seems to
be happening.
It is true that new teachers are
not paying enough for the pension they will receive upon retiring. MTS has
tried to rectify this situation by requesting that active teachers be allowed
to increase their contributions. Government agreed to a significant increase in
2005. At that time, contributions rose about 18 percent, or 1.1 percent of
salary. MTS has repeatedly requested another comparable increase, but
government, for reasons I don't understand, has not agreed.
It is good that active teachers are paying more for the
pension they will receive, but what about retired teachers? The contribution
level most retired teachers paid into their plan was set in 1980. But the
benefit levels that were in place at that time were significantly improved over
the following 15 years. We saw teachers retiring earlier and receiving better
benefits even though they never paid any additional contributions into the plan
to cover the cost of these improvements. Unlike active teachers, who are being
asked to pay increased contributions, there is no way to ask for additional
contributions from retired teachers.
Our plan has a funding shortfall, not a new entrant
shortfall. New teachers aren't paying enough, though I hope they soon will be.
Retired teachers, on the other hand, never paid enough either, but there is no
way they will ever be asked to contribute more funds into the plan and it
should not be the responsibility of new teachers to financially make up for
funding choices made by now retired teachers almost 30 years ago.
I want to be clear by underlining the fact that when people
talk about retired teachers subsidizing active teachers they are talking
nonsense. The idea that retired teachers are somehow entitled to use the future
basic benefit because of this is both dangerous and risky to the current and
future status of the plan.
I recognize the difficult situation retired teachers are in
with regard to COLA, but it must not be forgotten that they have enjoyed and
continue to enjoy benefits which were improved without a contribution increase
to pay for those improvements.
I stated earlier that I elect leaders to make decisions in
my best interest and in the best interests of my colleagues, both active and
retired. I believe that MTS has done exactly that in supporting the changes in
Bill 45. I've been very pleased with the co-operation between MTS and government
in the past in making improvements to our pension on issues such as maternity
and parental leave, and I ask that the government continue that co-operation
with respect to this issue.
Bill 45 is an equitable and evenhanded
approach to the current issue. It means a significantly better COLA for retired
teachers and protects the basic benefit for everyone. It is balanced and
reasonable. I believe speedy implementation of this legislation is in the best
interest of everyone.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristina Ellis
* * *
I am registered to speak at the hearings
regarding Bill 45. I received a telephone call this morning from the Clerk of
the Legislature informing me that I had been called on the first evening of
hearings.
Unfortunately, I was unable to be present on
Monday evening. With today's hearings devoted to presentations in French, I
find myself in the position of not being able to attend either the Wednesday
evening or the Thursday morning session. I, hereby, request that my objections
to Bill 45 be entered into the record by this written submission.
As a retired educator of six years, I find
myself in total awe regarding the proposals to the Manitoba Teachers' Pension
Act being proposed by Bill 45. I spent the last year as president of our local
chapter of retired teachers and have been in communication with RTAM regarding
what is transpiring. Twice in the past several years I, along with many of my
former colleagues, protested in front of the Manitoba Legislature with the
intention of letting the government of the day know of the injustice being
served upon Manitoba's retired teachers.
To the best of my knowledge, in 1977
Manitoba teachers negotiated the establishment of the Pension Adjustment
Account or PAA to protect pensions from inflation. 16.6 percent of all
teachers' contributions were directed to this account and the investment
returns were to pay the CPI COLA, and the government was to pay the other 50 percent.
For most of the next twenty years, this account was able to pay out full COLA
or nearly full COLA. This was accomplished without the government paying in its
share of the contributions in a setup known as "unfunded liability";
the government only pays out its share when called on to pay out the pension of
a retired teacher. the Manitoba government's recent injection of $1.9 billion
into the pension discussion is merely paying lip service to the issue; the
government still has total control of that money and it is doing nothing to
solve the problem.
Apparently provinces like British
Columbia and Alberta have also had to grapple with these same issues. Alberta
paid out its unfunded liability and have negotiated satisfactory solutions to
the issue.
While the Pension Task Force has been
established, it has met only sporadically and with no input from the retired
teachers of Manitoba. The inclusion of an observer in the last year seems only
to pay lip service to the 11,000 retired teachers in Manitoba.
When the PAA account was established in 1977
and CPI COLA was implemented, part of the negotiations with the government of
the day involved a trade-off. The government wanted the teachers to accept a
two-thirds COLA that they had been able to negotiate with other public-service
unions. Instead, Manitoba teachers stood united in its determination to have a
full COLA. They agreed to take over the administration of our own disability
insurance. In summary, Manitoba teachers paid in increased fees, administrative
costs, and premiums for a CPI COLA in a legitimately negotiated agreement with
the government of the day.
(Teachers, through TRAF funds bear the total
cost of administration.)
For a good many years, I have heard at meetings
talking about pensions, that actuaries have been predicting that the teachers'
pension plan would be in trouble if changes were not implemented. The changes
proposed by Bill 45 will not help the total situation. It will only put it off
for 10 years.
Current retirees deserve a fair and equitable
resolution to this problem. We, as retirees, paid for an equitable COLA. If the
recommendations that are being proposed in Bill 45 are implemented, the current
generation of retired teachers, about 11,000, is going to be sacrificed to much
lowered standards of living. We are being asked to bear the brunt of the
inadequate funding since 1977 and the inattention of 20 years that has caused
the COLA problem to be more costly to fix. We, the retired teachers, are being
punished for the inaction, despite actuarial warnings, of the two parties named
in The Teachers' Pension Act who are responsible–the government and the
Manitoba Teachers' Society. Sadly, the retired teachers now find themselves
sold out by their former organization that is supporting the woefully
inadequate funding recommendations of the Sale "package" and their
implementation in Bill 45.
A second issue that I find almost repugnant has
to do with the recent plebiscite that was carried out by the government and the
Manitoba Teachers' Society. At no time was the organization that speaks out on
my behalf, RTAM, consulted or asked to contribute. The hurried manner in which
it was carried out, the limited information provided, the very short voting
period, and the fairly large number of retirees who were unable to vote because
they were out of province or in the U.S.A., resulted in a travesty vote. The
plebiscite results with 52 percent for and 48 percent against can hardly be
called a clear majority. How can any government proceed with the implementation
of the Sale recommendations based on such a slim majority?
I urge the legislators of Manitoba to
reconsider the issues at stake that are being considered with Bill 45 and
changes to The Teachers' Pension Act. Eleven-thousand retired teachers paid for
what was a legitimately negotiated agreement with the government of the day.
The proposals as outlined in Bill 45 will sacrifice the current retired
teachers and turn us into second class citizens with vastly diminished buying
power.
We gave our careers for the betterment of our province's children and
this is our reward.
Tony Baliant
*
* *
Chairman, Mr. McFadyen, Dr. Gerrard
and members of the committee.
I stand here tonight to say I am
very unhappy with what is before us as retired teachers. It is a sad day in
Manitoba when the Legislative committee hearings for seniors in Manitoba have
to be held from 6 p.m. to midnight. That, I consider to be a put down, a type
of bullying, and abuse. We all know of the crime in this city–how do you
account for putting people in their 70s, 80s and 90s in danger? How do you
account for putting the same people at risk when they probably have difficulty
driving at night and with their very limited resources due to the lack of COLA
over the last nine years–have to pay extra for transportation in order to
attend and have their presentation hear? How do you explain to people from out
of town with the same financial problems this government has laid upon them to
have to drive in with gas prices as they are, and then pay for accommodation
and extra meals in order to be heard?
And while I'm on this topic, please
someone enlighten me how 400 presenters can be heard in the 18 hours you have
allotted.
And one more thing before I get to my topic–where in the
world is the care for seniors that was printed about in the 55 Plus section of
the Free Press on Monday, June 30 when quote, "the Manitoba
government also pledge to do its part to expose and reduce the incidence of
elder abuse when Healthy Living Minister Kerri Irvin-Ross voiced its support
for Elder Abuse Awareness Day on June 9. Saying Elder Abuse Awareness Day is an
appropriate time to promote respectful, intergenerational relationship . . . In
order to develop more age-friendly communities in Manitoba, we must all
recognize that elder abuse happens and work together to develop solutions to
address it."
I guess they were just pleasant words to say because the
same day her government was passing the first reading of Bill 45.
When I attempted to speak to someone at the MSOS publication
I got pretty much the same rhetoric–we decided we would not support the retired
teachers.
We also hear the half truths and non-truths. One example, Free
Press, July 17, ". . . MLAs begin public hearings on a plan to give
retirees a pension hike. At issue is a bill that offers retired teachers a
cost-of-living increase worth two thirds of inflation. That's not enough to
lift many retirees out of poverty, say officials of the Retired Teachers'
Association of Manitoba, a group that has lobbied relentlessly for pension
improvements . . . However, the Manitoba Teachers' Society says the cost of
living hike doubled what was on offer previously and represents sustainable,
long-term solution to the pension kerfuffle."
What is wrong with this article? This bill does not offer
any increase. This Bill 45 strips one third of the benefits we have paid for
our portion–it reduces our COLA from the full COLA we have paid for and are not
receiving to two-thirds COLA that we disagreed with back in the 1980s and paid 60 percent more in order to fund a full
COLA. The difficulty came when the government and MTS did not attend to the
fund that should have been put in place by the government when the actuaries
warned them of the fund needing attention. Yes, we paid our share and that
money now sits in account A–presently over $2 billion dollars and half of it is
our money. Yet we cannot get any media to listen to the truth–we simply are
inundated with this kind of press.
This two thirds that is being promoted by government, MTS
and the press will not be met even the first year if we had of endorsed the
Sale report. Instead of the 0.71 we would receive 1.44 of CPI. And that is not
near two thirds–even in the first year. Neither is the fund sustainable as both
government and MTS keep saying. The true fact is–there is no long-term funding
put in place–and that is what RTAM has been requesting.
The correct part in this article is that there are many
retired teachers living in poverty because the government and MTS–named in the
Teachers Pension Act have not attended to their part of the fund and have
chosen to "pay as you go."
I could say a lot more about that
article, but I don't wish to take the time. Others will fill in more of the
details. But we, as senior retired teachers, have been totally without a voice
that can be heard in the media or anywhere else. I agree; we have been
relentless. Would not you people be the same when you find you cannot access
the thousands of dollars that have been taken from you that was put there for your
old age?
I have been called relentless
myself. I have been told I say things rather plainly and very pointedly. I
agree. This is my senior years financial stake I have paid for that I'm talking
about.
Who was I as a teacher? My last
years were spent as a resource teacher in the River East Division. I was
relentless–as one principal describes me. I had a case load of 120 resource
students. I could not see a student who wanted to learn not have the support to
do that. I tested (two times a year), planned their programs and still had time
to teach some of them. Classroom teachers and paraprofessionals carried out
those programs. I reviewed each student once a cycle with the people who worked
directly with them. I recorded their progress every cycle. I was once asked by
a superintendent to figure how many hours I spent. I worked it out–the hours a
day I was using, figured the average number I would certainly put in a year.
Divided that by eight for an eight-hour day. When it was tallied I had about
two to three weeks a year off. I was only one of many doing the same thing. But
I believed the MTS and government would look after the COLA I had paid for when
I retired and it would be okay.
I would like to say some things
about retired teachers' representation. We are given a nominal representation
on the Pension Task Force–nominal as we have seen the plebiscite issue. Also on
the TRAF board–the representative is appointed each year. We are not even
mentioned in Bill 45.
I have been in the Legislature when Heather
Stefanson–Education critic in 2006-07–endeavoured to put a bill through the
Legislature giving RTAM one permanent representative on the TRAF board. The
government would listen to the reading–then it would talk the time out. It
happened more than once. This year Ron Schuler, as Education critic, again
attempted to add one RTAM representative to the TRAF board. Again the
government would filibuster the time out. Does this not seem actually serving
abuse to seniors who are intimately involved with what is being done as much on
their behalf as on behalf of active teachers? When the legislation for The
Teachers' Pensions Act was written, retired teachers had no organization, so it
couldn't be mentioned. However, with Bill 45 we are organized. Why then are we
not mentioned in this bill as are MTS and government? Certainly we have paid
our designated share of our COLA and should be allowed to sit and be counted.
Now, what I really came here to talk about was the
plebiscite. Too bad there are so many government actions that are acting
against us and take up time.
Concerning the plebiscite, there are serious concerns about
the entire process and the government's decision to legislate the Sale
recommendations on the basis of the 52 percent yes vote.
To back up to who put forth the plebiscite, this was
supposedly done by the PTF. RTAM is represented on
this committee albeit with only one representative with a voice and our
president of RTAM. Yet RTAM was not a part of this plebiscite. They were
suddenly called to a PTF meeting to be told this
plebiscite was being sent to all teachers, active and retired, about 26,000 in
all. Government was paying the bill. They were not even given opportunity to
have it discussed at the RTAM board.
When the results came back RTAM was not provided with these
results until they had been released to the media.
There were 11, 271 ballots cast, a 44 percent return; yes
votes were 5,848, 52 percent; no votes were 5,351, 48 percent. Difference was
497 votes, a slim majority if that was the whole story. It could not even then
be counted as a clear majority as the MTS president has claimed.
We should remember also that there was not too much
turnaround time from the time you received the ballot till when it was required
to be back, and no late ballots were considered.
The government has no moral majority to proceed with the
implementation of the Sale recommendations based on the slim 4 percent
majority. A 48 percent no vote must be recognized. This no vote is largely the
vote of retired teachers. This is a major constituent group of members of the
plan. Legislators cannot ignore it.
Consider the number of active teachers, roughly 15,000 in
all versus the roughly 11,000 retired teachers who were given the opportunity
of voting. Then consider the massive resources the MTS had to devote to the
plebiscite campaign. Alongside that the retired teachers were only able to
afford a send letter and other than that were simply able to talk to members.
Much of it was word of mouth from members to members. Now to make matters even
worse for retired teachers, many are living in other provinces, possibly with
their children as some can no longer afford their own homes. Mail today is slow
and that even affected some living in Manitoba. These people, when they
received their ballots, were not given time in the time span allotted to return
their ballot. They were disenfranchised by the government.
Considering the slim majority of 4 percent yes votes, this
is really a repudiation of the MTS provincial executive proposals to solve the
COLA problem and their support of the Sale recommendations.
Many of the retired teachers found the information
confusing. Some probably found the information was geared to a yes vote. The
info offered gave no analysis of the impact. The pivoting period was too short
to allow for time to be adequately informed. Many who are not yet RTAM members
were unaware of anything going on. Many do not have computers to keep abreast
of what is going on and did not have access to the Sale report.
Many retired out of province in Canada and some in the
United States advised RTAM that they had received their ballots after the
deadline. Many have said their vote was no. Slow mail delivery may have also
affected some Manitoba residents.
As there was such a slim majority, this disenfranchisement
may have critically affected the results of this vote.
It is unfair to retirees, the people most directly affected
by the proposed COLA provisions in this Bill 45. They are the ones who do not
have the ability to make adjustments in their living expenses as do active
teachers.
The time limit does not allow me to describe all the
problems with your actions and legislation and the countless ways they are
deleteriously affecting one generation of educators, therefore I will summarize
as follows: My government is abusing me and other seniors; my professional
association is helping my government in its abuse; I support RTAM; And I do not
support Bill 45.
Ms. Karen Boughton
* * *
I understand that this bill has now
passed the second reading and will be written into legislation in September,
unless changes can be made. The amendments in this bill are an implementation
of the Sale report "package" and COLA funding recommendations.
RTAM has not endorsed the complete "package"
because it does not address the needs of the present retired teachers in
Manitoba. This was made clear in February of this year by the RTAM Board and
the reasons given for not endorsing the complete package were made very clear.
I, like many RTAM members, fully support the RTAM in this decision.
This was followed by the plebiscite put together by the
Manitoba Teachers' Society, MTS, and the government with no input from RTAM.
Kindly allow me to briefly review what has occurred with and
to the retired teachers of Manitoba.
First of all, we were asked to pay for our COLA or pension
indexing by the NDP government and the MTS in 1977. We did not complain; we
believed we would be properly looked after with the legislation that ensued.
The amount of that payment was deducted from our cheques each month. Neither
did we complain when monies were taken from the fund that we as teachers were
creating in order to help fund the generation of retired teachers at that time.
Early in the 1980s discussion
arose about reducing our COLA to two-thirds or 66.6 percent, as the civil
service was doing. We objected to having our COLA reduced from full to
two-thirds and, to maintain a full COLA, we agreed to and paid an additional 60
percent. These funds were being deducted from us and used to build a fund in
Account A with TRAF.
The government had agreed to match the amount we were paying
but they chose to "pay as you go" and therefore did not build a
funding program to support their giving. Interest was being earned through wise
TRAF investments, but only on the teachers' portion of the contributions. No
interest could be earned on the government's lack of contributions till
required.
This was the government's plan to which the Manitoba
Teachers' Society agreed. We, as MTS members in those times, supported what the
MTS had agreed to and every month our money went into the fund. The government,
as the initiator of the plan, neglected to address their responsibilities; they
did not match contributions and build a fund.
In the 1980s and 1990s the government and Manitoba Teachers' Society, who
were named in The Teachers' Pensions Act, were warned several times by the
actuary that this fund could not continue without being addressed and fixed.
There would not be enough money to continue the retired teachers' COLA. Yet,
neither the government nor the Manitoba Teachers' Society did anything. Today
we are seemingly being blamed for their inattention to these warnings. We are
the sacrificed generation who are now being asked to pay the price of their
lack of insight and action.
We did receive a satisfactory COLA until the government
changed in 1999 and the new NDP government under our present Premier, Gary
Doer, came into power. No effort was made to address the issue of lack of
government funding. Instead, the retired teachers who had paid their share for
a full COLA, as well as given support to the prior generation, were almost cut
off their COLA. From 1999 to 2007 we have received about 50 percent of what was
our right. Each year the COLA decreased.
To add insult to injury–we are told we cannot access our
monies in Account A. Our Account A can be used, however, to subsidize the
present active teachers who do not pay enough to fund their own benefits. These
present active teachers also make almost one-third to one-half more salary than
most of us ever earned. Salaries are $60,000 and $70,000 per year or more
depending on the position, training and years of teaching. Salaries were frozen
for many of us for the last years of our teaching careers.
Now we receive an average pension of between $19,000 to
$22,000 a year. This year the 0.71 COLA will give some about $100 or less a
year for the lower pensioned retirees. For those with pensions of $20,000 it
will pay about $142 a year.
Could any MLA meet today's heavily rising costs with that
little an increase on an already low pension? If so, then why do MLAs accept
the full COLA they have given themselves as well as an ample salary? Is their,
or your, work and expertise more valuable than that of former educators, your
Manitoba educators with their many years of training, experience, expertise and
commitment? We paid for our COLA. Are you paying for yours?
This Bill 45 also states that as well as amending our COLA
to two-thirds CPI, it has an inflation cap of 5.33–two-thirds of 8 percent of
CPI–on an affordability basis for 10 years. Interest crediting will be the
better-of method which may modestly enhance funding of the Pension Adjustment
Account. Should any surplus arise, through increased interest rates on
investments, that benefit is denied to us too. A reserve account will be
established to help smooth the way for the next generation of retired teachers
who are now being promised a full COLA.
This bill falls far short of addressing the basic concerns
and objectives of this generation of retired teachers. It continues, instead,
to create a generation of retired teachers who are being badly abused, bullied
and actually sacrificed by their government and by the present executive of the
MTS.
The MTS has completely changed 'coats' in the last several
years. They do not take responsibility for any retired teachers–present or those
soon to be retiring. They do not honestly and justly look at the abuse they are
inflicting. This is not the role of their MTS predecessors. Those were people
intent on looking after all teachers of the past, present and future, and
setting up ways to help them in their senior years as inflation grew. What they
have carefully laid down is now being ripped away by this new generation of MTS
and by this government.
Leading up to this bill was the plebiscite, brought in by
MTS and government acting supposedly as the pension task force. Our
representative and our president were invited on short notice to one meeting in
May only to be told that a plebiscite would be conducted. We do have
representative status but it was completely ignored. The plebiscite, developed
arbitrarily by others with no input from RTAM, was sent out and expected to be
returned in a set amount of time. Retired teachers visiting or living in other
provinces were not allowed sufficient time to return their ballots via Canada
Post. The government and MTS abused those teachers by disenfranchising them.
Was this the plan of these two governing bodies?
When the 26,000 ballots were sent, 11,271 ballots were cast
for a 44 percent return rate. Of those: 5,848 voted for–52 percent; 5,351 voted
against–48 percent. A 497 vote difference–with many of the retired teachers'
ballots from other provinces not yet returned and not counted when they were
returned. That was only one fault of many with this action.
RTAM was not even advised of the
outcome of the plebiscite, but got their news on radio. And now we hear both
MTS and government saying they have a clear majority to put the Sale report
into legislation. What a farce.
I strongly disagree that any majority can be claimed. The
development and implementation of this plebiscite were rife with faults and it
is shockingly unfair and unjust to retirees.
What is needed now is either a repeal of Bill 45 or else a
rewritten bill that includes in its legislation the present generation of
retired teachers. If it is to be written–then, as my father would say when he
taught me to plough a straight furrow, do it right the first time.
Let us have fairness and equity now, in the short term that
only the better-of method for crediting interest to the PAA–with a three-year
rolling average backdated to 2005, be given without conditions attached.
Let the government commit to a long-term memorandum of
agreement so that we can begin good faith discussions to launch long-term
funding solutions.
Let that bill be written so that the retired teachers of
today and the next 10 years feel they have been fairly and justly served and
can finally be lifted out of the quagmire of the assortment of half truths and
lies that have abounded over the past year.
Let us have our turn at using the money we have invested in
Account A–the half that is rightfully our share for a fair COLA.
Finally, lift us out of the depths of financial distress we
have lived through for the past nine years.
As you know, increases in the cost
of living are occurring everywhere: gas at the pump is becoming out of the
average person's reach; dental costs are high for those on limited pensions;
pharmacy costs are going higher; taxes both for our homes and almost all
purchases continue to rise; heating will be a problem for many this winter;
cost of clothing, groceries, everyday regular needs are increasing; telephone,
television don't creep up any more–they jump; entertainment cost now exceeds
our budgets.
Seniors need these things as well as all the other people do,
yet without COLA they can be out of reach. My dollar now has the value of about
89 cents. I retired from the position of principal of Churchill High School in
1990 and I am feeling the changes being imposed upon me. I regret having
believed my professional association and my provincial government.
I rest my case in the hope that Bill 45 will either be
changed for the good of all retired teachers or be taken off the plans to put
it into legislation.
John (Jack) W. Carroll
* * *
As a retired teacher, I am here today to enter into the
public record my strong opposition to Bill 45.
It is extremely disconcerting to have to present concerns
about a situation that never ought to have arisen. If the government of
Manitoba and the Manitoba Teachers’ Society had been committed to fairness and
equality for all 32,145 members of the teachers’ pension plan, we would not
have to be here today.
In my career as a teacher and in my last 22 years in
education, as a staff officer of the Manitoba Teachers’ Society, I relied on
the MTS to represent with integrity the interests of all members of the
teachers’ pension plan of which I am a member. I am very chagrined to
witness that this is no longer occurring. As a result, the economic well- being
of all teachers will continue to be at risk during their retirement
years.
The process leading to Bill 45 was flawed and
anti-democratic.
As has been ably demonstrated by the Retired Teachers’
Association of Manitoba, the Sale report and entire process leading to Bill 45
has been flawed and inappropriate from the outset. While time does not allow me
a full review of the Sale report, I will comment on some of the flaws.
Firstly, why does the Sale report
omit important historical information? The report is completely silent on the
history of COLA provisions from the outset of the creation of the Teachers’
Retirement Allowances Fund in 1925. More importantly, the report is completely
silent about the very significant history of the 1977 agreement between the
government of Manitoba and the Manitoba Teachers’ Society.
I recall as a teacher in early career, I agreed to and fully
supported the Manitoba Teachers’ Society recommendation and subsequent
agreement with government in 1977 to:
1) Increase our
pension contributions, to a much higher amount than civil servants were paying
in exchange for guarantee of a full COLA protection to a maximum of 5 to 6
percent;
2) Remove the
disability pension benefits and survivor benefits;
3) Provide for
future retirees a full COLA provided sufficient funds were available within a
Pension Adjustment Account. We were informed that the PAA was funded to provide
a COLA of 5 to 6 percent per year.
4) Effective in
1977, provide to teachers already retired. A COLA of 5.8 percent which was 98.1
percent of CPI. (See attached TRAF Document-Cost of Living Adjustment since
1977.)
I understood that we would have to pay for our own disability
insurance.
As quoted in the Manitoba Teachers’ Society publication,
1977, George Strang, one of the Staff Officers at the
society responsible for the pension portfolio, wrote the following: The present
level of contributions is expected to offset the full increase in the cost of
living provided the cost of living does not increase more than five to six per
cent per year.
(Source: Manitoba Teachers’ Society article, 1977 by George Strang, MTS staff officer).
As a young teacher at the time, I
was always interested very interested in pensions. (In the absence of access to
free public education my mother who had no opportunities for advanced education
and therefore no pension was instrumental in providing the motivation to ensure
that I would have a good pension. From my first year of teaching, I paid close
attention to all matters affecting the welfare of teachers including pensions.)
Being blessed with a social
conscience and a strong commitment to the well being of the teacher collective,
I never begrudged the fact that the 1977 deal ensured cost-of-living for
teachers already retired at the time. As part of a collective I endorsed
totally the concept that retired teachers had a right to economic well-being in
their senior years. My salary at the time was $21,600.
As young members of MTS, we fully supported these changes.
In 1980, we agreed to a subsequent contribution increase. Those are only
two examples of important information that has not been included or even
considered in the Sale report. In addition, there are numerous examples of
inaccurate and misleading information throughout the report.
Secondly, why did the government
avoid seeking the expertise of experienced, knowledgeable and credible
specialists in plan design and administration? Why did the government choose a
political appointee thereby ensuring further politicization of the
process?
Mr. Tim Sale, a respected member of
the Legislature and the NDP, was clearly a political appointee of the
government. He did not have the pension background, experience or credibility
to deal with the complex task he was assigned.
Any investigation of this
importance should have been conducted by a government-appointed committee or
commission of recognized, credible and experienced pension plan designers and
administrators, including government and MTS representatives that were present
at the discussions in the 60’s, 70’s
and 80’s to ensure documentation of accurate
historical information.
To that group, I would have added
elected representatives of the government, the Manitoba Teachers’ Society and
the Retired Teachers’ Association of Manitoba. In addition, I would have
included an actuary recognized by all parties for his or her expertise,
experience and credibility in pension plan design and reform.
Instead, government chose to take
the political route. Government knew that active and retired teachers were
engaged in a dispute. What better way to heighten a dispute than to select
strategies that fuel the conflict? What better way to take the heat off the
government and let the teachers fight amongst themselves? Government could then
sit back; enjoy watching the dispute escalate and not have to attend to any of
its obligations as plan sponsor.
Thirdly, from whom did Mr. Sale obtain
the mandate referred to on page 2 at the outset of the process–to request the
actuary to design a plan for a two-thirds COLA? Was the mandate negotiated in
advance? Is there information that is not being shared with 32,145 plan
members? In the Sale report, at page 2, it is stated
“As part of our work, the present Actuary, AON, was asked to
model the PAA on the assumption that it adhered to the plan’s actuarial design
assumptions, and was used to pay no more than two-thirds COLA every year.”
The net effects of the Sale report
recommendations now entrenched in Bill 45 were
1)
To reduce potential benefits for current and future retirees;
2)
To cause the entrenchment of an inter-generational conflict and fuel the
hard feelings that all disputes foster;
3)
To discourage any discussions for the next 10 years.
The economic well-being of retired
teachers and future retirees is being sacrificed. As a senior citizen, I am
deeply concerned.
The process undertaken by the
government and the MTS including the plebiscite were flawed from the outset.
In written publications subsequent
to the Sale report, the Manitoba Teachers’ Society claimed to represent all
teachers, provided information that was misleading or incorrect, that contained
partial truths, that totally omitted historical facts about the COLA issue, and
promised that a yes-to-COLA vote would result in doubling retired teachers COLA
in 2008 without indicating that the doubling would provide a paltry increase
less than two-thirds of CPI in 2008. Active teachers were led falsely to
believe that the recommendations of the Sale report if legislated would resolve
the problems for all active and retired members in the long term. All of those
claims are false.
I was indeed totally puzzled that the Manitoba Teachers’
Society was in total support of the Sale recommendations despite the fact that
1) The funding
problem was not fixed
2) The Sale report
provides a reduction of benefits for active teachers for absolutely nothing in
return
3) Current retirees
potential benefits are reduced to a two-thirds cap while ensuring that a minor
change to the formula ensures that we will never come close to achieving a
two-thirds COLA.
This scenario is very frightening. Why is the MTS providing
misinformation to the active membership? Why is the MTS pitting active teachers
against its senior citizen retired members?
Both the government and the society claimed moral victory
following publication of the results of the supposedly non-binding plebiscite
purportedly funded with taxpayers’ dollars. The Society, on its Web site
claimed that “the majority of the members of the teachers’ plan support the
Sale recommendations”. That is blatantly and mathematically incorrect as the
following information demonstrates.
Following are key problems of the plebiscite process:
·
Deadline dates for casting mail-in ballots were too short for retired
teachers living out-of-province.
· Plebiscite
materials indicated that only active teachers were entitled to vote. That meant
exclusion of teachers on maternity leave, parental and adoptive leave and
teachers on unpaid leave who would have been excluded in the ballot mailing
sent to only active teachers and retired teachers in receipt of pension.
· The
plebiscite made no provision for determining the percentage of active teacher
and retired teacher participation.
· Approximately
6,000 teachers on deferred pension were excluded from the vote and thus
disenfranchised.
·
As evidenced by the results of the plebiscite, thousands of teachers did
not vote.
·
The total number of eligible voters should have been approximately
32,145 instead of the 25,616 to whom the ballots were purportedly sent. The
rate of return was 44 percent. Of those to whom ballots were sent, only 23
percent voted in favour.
·
5,848 teachers who voted yes represent only 18 percent of the 32,145
plan members who should all have received ballots.
(Source: TRAF Annual Report, 2007, (Membership numbers, p.1)
To claim moral victory under such circumstance is unethical.
How can we believe that we are part of a democracy under such circumstances?
Regrettably, such processes breed cynicism and erode trust among voting
taxpayers. The pretence of democracy becomes a sham.
As a result, I am among hundreds of teachers presenting at
these hearings in the hope that integrity and justice will prevail.
This provision is also highly objectionable.
After 2018, any surpluses that may accumulate in the Pension
Adjustment Account during any year of the 10-year period are to be reserved for
use after the end of that period. Any surplus in the account credited to the
PAA during the 10-year period or after that may be used only in accordance with
the regulations. Bill 45 provides that the regulations will be determined by
the TRAF board with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council. I wish
to remind the legislative committee that the TRAF board is currently
constituted of three Manitoba Teachers’ Society representatives and four
government representatives. Among those four representatives, one of those
appointments may, at the whim of government, be a retired teacher.
According to Bill 45, regulations
can thus be passed without transparency and without recourse for those who
might be negatively affected. If TRAF Board is authorized to propose changes in
regulations then RTAM must also have official representation on that board.
In respect to surpluses in the
PAA, I remind the legislative committee that all surpluses earned in the
teachers’ pension plan are earned on the dollars invested by the collective
contributions of active and retired teachers and should belong to all. That is
a fact that needs to be recognized in all future discussions about COLA and
amendments to The Pensions’ Act.
The Pensions’
Task Force is referred to in proposed amendments to the act. The provision
allows that the task force make recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor in
Council respecting contribution rates.
The Bill 45
amendment does not specify composition of the Pension Task Force other than to
state that there are representatives from government and from the
society. Given the awful experiences of recent pension reform processes
and the abysmal treatment of RTAM representatives, we can foresee that all
future pension reforms will be politicized.
Currently, we are experiencing a
total disregard for the rights of retired teachers. Proposed legislation
entrenching unfairness and discrimination in the recent process leads me to
state that RTAM must be recognized in statute to the same degree as the
Manitoba Teachers’ Society.
The Pensions’ Task Force ought to be
included in the act, with provision for composition, mandate, powers, duties
and responsibilities and conflict of interest guidelines.
Throughout this recent process, for
reasons already outlined in this brief, the Manitoba Teachers’ Society has
demonstrated that it does not respect the rights of retired teachers nor is it
interested in protecting their economic well-being. As a result, we must
undertake a tripartite approach ensuring fair and equitable representation from
government, the Society and RTAM.
In addition, membership must include
credible and experienced pension specialists on all teacher pension plan
governing bodies. As retired teachers, in recent years, we have collectively
witnessed the devastating effects of increased politicization of governance of
our pension plan and its reforms.
Pension plans and politics do not
make good bedfellows!
We must get off that slippery slope
to ensure the well-being and long-term sustainability of the teachers’ pension
plan.
To deal with the COLA issue a new
formula must be developed. Because the formula of the Pension Adjustment
Account is based upon crediting the rate of return on mortgage, bond and
debenture holdings, retired teachers do not fair and equitable access to
investment returns on the entire pension fund.
Surplus revenue on pension
fund investments has been used over the years solely to subsidize the
contribution rate of active teachers. We have all been informed repeatedly that
the current contribution rate for active teachers is not sufficient to meet the
future pension commitment for active teachers. In recent years, the society
asked for a 2 percent increase in contribution rate. Government granted only
1.1 percent and as a result the basic contribution rate of active teachers is
not adequate for their retirement. So the current contribution rate continues
to be subsidized by return on investment of monies contributed over the years
by active and retired teachers.
Fair and equitable pension
reform is required so that return on fund investment is shared equitably
between active and retired teachers. That is not currently happening and needs
to be changed.
Since my retirement in 2004, a
mere four years, the purchasing power of my pension dollar is now only 94 cents
or 6 percent less than it was at date of retirement due to COLAs less than full
CPI. The following table provides illustration of this point. (Source: TRAF
Annual Report, 2007)
2005 2.1%
4%
19%
2006 2.2%
64
29.1%
2007 1.6%
.63%
39.4%
2008 2.4%
.71%
29.6%
For teachers who have been retired
for 10 years, the loss to inflation is in the range of 12 to 13 percent.
This is not acceptable.
The 2007 average monthly pension
was $1,693 (gross) for women teachers and $2,250 (gross) for male teachers.
We currently have the lowest pensions
in Canada and a properly funded COLA is absolutely essential to protect us
against the ravages of inflation.
If there is no proper funding of
COLA, and no access to a reasonable CPI, today’s average teacher pensioner will
see his or her teacher pension reduced by at least 25 percent in purchasing
power prior to reaching the average teacher life expectancy of 81 years. This
will cause an ever-increasing number of teachers to endure living significantly
below the poverty line.
That is a travesty that must
end. Solutions to fund our COLA fairly and equitably are essential now!
As I have outlined in this brief, the
Manitoba Teachers’ Society’s claim to represent retired teachers is not at all
demonstrated by the organization’s actions in the last few years. We have
witnessed ample evidence of ageism and the non-respect of rights of retired
teachers who are now senior citizens.
I
submit to you today, that we deserve to be treated with dignity, respect and
that we must have an equitable place at all discussion tables and statutory
bodies where decisions affecting our welfare are taken.
In my previous capacity as staff
officer of the Manitoba Teachers Society, I had the privilege of providing
support to a group representing active and retired women teachers who in
January 2000, with the society’s support, filed in the Court of Queen’s Bench a
declaration that provisions of the Teachers’ Pension’s Act were in
contravention of the Manitoba Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. The issue before the court was to obtain the right to
purchase pension service for periods of maternity leave.
For over 20 years prior to 2000,
successive governments including the NDP continued to deny women teachers this
right. In 2000, Manitoba teachers were the only ones in Canada who did not the
right to purchase pension service for periods of maternity leave. Our only
recourse was to appeal to the courts to rectify this injustice.
In order to avoid a court battle that
would ultimately have been a major embarrassment to the government, Bill 45, an
Act to amend the Teachers’ Pensions Act, 2000, was enacted by the NDP
government in 2000.
Many teachers struggled to pay the very expensive actuarial
cost to purchase past maternity leave service that included a 16.5
percent contribution to the Pension Adjustment Account. Those who are now
retiring or nearing retirement will not receive the COLA payments for which
they paid at actuarial cost.
The amended Teachers’ Pension Act did
not redress the lost rights of thousands of retired women teachers who had to
resign their positions when they became pregnant. To this day, they have no
right to pension service for periods of time during which they ought to have
had the right to maternity leave and the right to retain a teaching position.
We need to keep in mind the fact that these women now in their 60’s and older were subject to discrimination and as a
result now also suffer economic hardship due to their small pensions that are
not adequately adjusted for CPI. They are the most vulnerable group among
retired teachers and the ones who will be most negatively affected by the
failure of this Government to legislate provisions for a fair and equitable
COLA.
The only substantive amendment made
to the Teachers’ Pension Act since 1985 was enacted as a result of a legal
action initiated to force the government of Manitoba to respect the human
rights of women teachers. It now appears that we may have to again go to the
courts to encourage the government to respect the human rights of all retired
teachers. I wish to remind the legislative committee, the government and the
Manitoba Teachers’ Society that thousands of retired Manitoba teachers now live
under the poverty line. This is simply not acceptable and must no longer be
tolerated. In my view, if Bill 45 is passed into legislation, a human rights
violation will be entrenched in a Manitoba statute. We need to ensure that the
human rights of all teachers are respected regardless of our age or gender.
It is time to implement fair and
equitable funding of the COLA.
Bill 45 must be withdrawn.
In closing, I thank you for your
attention to this presentation and I urge you to undertake to rectify the
problems with the Teachers’ Pension Plan COLA in a manner that ensures fair and
equal treatment of all teachers before and under the law.
(excerpt from Manitoba Teacher, submitted Mariette Ferré)
Respectfully submitted,
Mariette Ferré
Retired teacher,
member of RTAM, 2004-2008
Administrative
Staff Officer, Manitoba Teachers’ Society 1982-2004
Teacher, St. Vital
School Division, 1978-1982
Curriculum consultant, Bureau de l’éducation
française, 1975-1978
Teacher, St. James
School Division, 1971-1975
Teacher, Pine Falls
School District, 1969-1971
*
* *
My name is Pat Isaak and I am the
president of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. I want to thank the committee for
the opportunity to present our views on the proposed amendments to The
Teachers' Pensions Act that are contained in Bill 45.
Let me say first of all that MTS
wholeheartedly supports Bill 45 and thanks the government for introducing this
bill. The changes being proposed are the culmination of considerable discussion
and debate among the members of the teachers' pension plan, both active and
retired. Bill 45 represents a significant improvement in the pension benefit
paid to our retired members. At the same time, it balances the need to provide
a better cost-of-living adjustment with protecting the basic benefit for all
active and retired members. We appreciate the willingness of government to deal
with a difficult issue in a balanced and fiscally responsible manner.
By this time, you have all been
made well aware of the contentious nature of the COLA issue. Without any
exaggeration, the Teachers' Society has been working non-stop to find a
resolution to this long-standing problem for the last five years. There is no other
issue that has been more important to the society's agenda than the COLA
problem.
Unfortunately, the pension debate
has become not only contentious, but deeply personal. The society regrets that
some have taken this approach because as much as pensions, and pension debates
can become emotional, they are simply about numbers.
Pension plans are a balancing act.
The bottom line with any plan is that the money paid out in benefits must be
balanced with the money paid in through contributions and investment returns.
What we are faced with in our plan is an imbalance. The money in is–and has
been for more than two decades–out of balance with the benefits being paid out.
A bit of background may be
helpful. The teachers' pension plan in Manitoba is a defined benefit plan. In a
nutshell, that means that the benefit determined at a person's retirement
remains the same, or defined, until that person dies, notwithstanding the
options chosen by the person to deal with survivor benefits. Once a person
retires, their benefit cannot be reduced, regardless of the financial status of
the plan.
Inflation protection is important,
and the issue we face today is that the current annual cost-of-living
adjustment being paid to retired teachers is inadequate.
With this in mind, let me try to give
you a picture of the balancing act that I described earlier.
In 1980 a contribution rate was
set for active teachers at the time of approximately 6.5 percent to 7 percent
of salary. In 1980, these are the numbers that are important to note:
· There
were six active teachers contributing to the plan for every one teacher
collecting a benefit;
· The
average age at retirement was about 61;
· The
average years of service at retirement was about 35 years;
· The
basic pension benefit was based on an average of the best seven years of
earnings.
For the next 25 years there were
demographic changes in our membership and improvements made to the pension
benefit in every one of the areas mentioned above. Today:
· There
are 1.3 active teachers contributing to the plan for every one teacher
collecting a benefit;
·
The average age at retirement is about 58;
·
The average years of service at retirement is about 28 years;
· The
basic pension is based on an average of the best five years of earnings.
What does all this mean?
· It
means that today there are fewer teachers contributing to the plan in relation
to the number of teachers collecting a pension and receiving annual COLAs;
· It
means that teachers are contributing to the plan for fewer years and collecting
a pension for longer than they did in 1980;
· It
means that the basic pension is based on higher average earnings (seven years
to five years) relative to 1980.
Combined with increased life
expectancy this means that instead of paying in approximately two years for
every year they collect a pension, teachers are now paying in approximately one
year.
How does this create an imbalance?
All the improvements to teachers'
pensions significantly increased the money being paid out of the plan. But
throughout the entire 25-year period, until September, 2005, teachers paid no
more money into the plan. In other words, while the money going in remained the
same, the money going out was increasing drastically.
In fact, a perfect storm was in
the making. Life expectancy was increasing, investment rates were decreasing,
the number of teachers paying into the plan was flat while the number of
retired teachers was growing.
The logical and reasonable
question to ask is why this issue wasn't addressed sooner.
The answer to that question is as
complex as it is embarrassing. In order to deal with a 25-year problem, you
need to look at a great deal of history. There is not enough time to elaborate
on all the issues that were at play in coming to the current problem, but I
will attempt to address the most important factors. Here's why.
1. Statutory
limitations
The Teachers' Pension Plan is a
statute of the Province. Any changes, therefore, require legislation. Unlike
other unions, teachers in Manitoba don't deal with their pensions through the
collective bargaining process. We must lobby the government of the day in order
to make changes. There were no substantial changes made to the act during the
late 1980s and 1990s.
2. The decision-making
process
Changes to the teachers' pension
plan have traditionally taken place as a result of discussions of the Pension
Task Force (PTF), which didn't meet for most of the 1990s.
3. How did the imbalance
happen?
Throughout the 1980s
and 1990s, the focus of MTS was on making benefit
improvements. As the evidence shows, there were significant improvements to
pension benefits, but neither MTS nor government paid any attention to how
those benefits would be paid for over the long term.
4. What is the
specific COLA issue?
Full and close to full COLAs were
paid out for a period of almost 20 years. In 1999 the perfect storm was in full
force. Despite repeated warnings by the plan's actuary starting in 1984, COLAs
were paid out at a rate that far exceeded the money that was paid in to sustain
them in the long term.
The real shame of this issue is
that it was completely preventable. Had MTS and government paid attention to
the actuary's warnings, one of two things would have happened:
· The
contribution rate would have been increased to a level that would sustain the
COLAs being paid out, and/or
· The
COLA benefit would have been reduced to a level that would have matched the
contributions coming in.
The bottom line is that, for a
period of more than two decades, both plan sponsors, MTS and successive
provincial governments, ignored the issues and allowed the COLA to become
seriously compromised.
The reality that we now face is
that the money required to pay what once was, that is, a full COLA, is just not
there. Today, the cost to pay a 3 percent COLA would exceed $1 billion. Even to
guarantee two-thirds of that amount would cost between $650 million and $700.
It is not my intent to appear disrespectful
to retired teachers, but that money just isn't available. My colleagues on the
MTS provincial executive and I would love nothing more than to stand together
with retired teachers and say that we can restore the COLAs of the 1980s and 1990s.
My own mother lives on the
survivor benefit of my late father's class 3 pension, and there is nothing that
would make me happier than to have her enjoy a bigger annual increase.
But it's not affordable. The only
place to get more money for COLA is from active teachers and government, and
the amounts required to fill a 25-year hole are just too big.
It serves no useful purpose to
dwell on past mistakes. We need to move forward and to do that, we need to make
reasoned, balanced and fiscally appropriate decisions. The plan must be put
back on track to balance the money in with the money out.
The Manitoba Teachers' Society
believes that Bill 45 does exactly what needs to be done.
· It
provides an immediate and significant improvement in the COLA paid to beneficiaries;
· It
recognizes the need for checks and balances so that the COLA is sustainable;
· It
provides a 10-year safety net in the form of the "better of"
investment earnings crediting;
· It
provides for a review of the implementation after five years;
· It
provides for a review of the contribution rate after the 2009 valuation;
· It
places a priority on protecting the basic pension benefit.
This last point cannot be
overstated. From the outset of this issue, MTS has been absolutely clear about
one thing: we will not agree to anything that puts the basic pension benefit at
risk. And therein lies the heart of the disagreement between MTS and RTAM.
Over the course of the past several
months, there has been much said by both MTS and RTAM about whether or not the
implementation of Tim Sale's report on teachers' pensions, as provided for in
Bill 45, is beneficial to plan members. There has also been a flurry of
misinformation, emotional rhetoric and personal attacks, none of which has been
helpful in providing useful and factual information to members who were asked
to make a financial decision about the plan.
RTAM has stated publicly many
times, including in their official response to the Sale report, that if the
money to pay COLA is not forthcoming in the form of a lump sum payment from the
teachers and government, then the basic benefit account (account A) should be
used as a source of funds to pay COLA.
Let me be perfectly clear. That
cannot be allowed to happen. Raiding the basic benefit, which even RTAM
acknowledges to be underfunded, to pay COLA, is irresponsible on every
conceivable level.
Let me be even clearer. Any
government that considers putting teachers' pensions in jeopardy in order to
solve the COLA problem will be faced with thousands of outraged teachers.
Twenty-five years ago we made
mistakes that resulted in our inability to adequately fund COLA. If we take
money from the account that pays the basic benefit to achieve a short-term fix
to the COLA problem it will not take very long until it is the basic benefit
itself that is in jeopardy.
Short-sightedness is what got us
here. If nothing else, we should all have learned some lessons from the past.
At the end of the day this issue
is about numbers. Bill 45 is based on sound financial information and what is
in the best interests of the long-term sustainability of the pension benefits
for both active and retired teachers.
Bill 45, before you today, will
put the teachers' pension plan on a solid path toward that sustainability.
Pat Isaak
*
* *
I am disappointed to be here today to speak with you
about Bill 45. I had never contemplated that I would ever be in a position to
be so vehemently opposed to proposed amendments to the Teachers’ Pensions Act
that have been agreed to by the government of Manitoba and the political
leadership of the Manitoba Teachers’ Society (MTS). Unfortunately, Bill 45 is
the most outrageous attack on current provisions of the Act in its
history–provisions that were vigorously pursued by the MTS in the late 70’s. I am shocked that either the government or the MTS
would countenance such an attack on the pension rights of Manitoba’s teachers.
I am very surprised that the Minister would bring
forward such amendments. I am informed by the Retired Teachers’ Association of
Manitoba (RTAM) that the Minister committed to not amending the act as it
related to the provision of cost-of-living adjustments without the consent of
RTAM. That these amendments, which they so strongly objected to would now be
introduced does not speak well of the Minister’s honouring his commitments.
That the Minister would rely on a plebiscite that was so hastily administered
that many retired teachers did not even have an opportunity to vote on it,
which denied the opportunity to vote to over 6,000 members of the plan
(including teachers on leave this year), which was accompanied by a campaign of
misinformation by the MTS, which denied RTAM a reasonable opportunity to
provide information on an alternative view on this issue, and despite all that
could only find 23 percent of the members polled who would express support for
the proposal. To call this a mandate to bring forth legislation is truly
farcical.
I am shocked that the MTS would be supporting this
legislation. the MTS in the '70s fought hard to
assure that their retired colleagues would receive adequate protection against
the damaging effects of inflation during their retirement years.
To now find the present day MTS fighting against
adequate protection from the ravages of inflation is puzzling indeed,
especially when one notes the recent concerns raised by the Governor of the
Bank of Canada about the significant potential for a return of substantial
increases in the rate of inflation. People like the late George Strang and Bob Gordon, with whom I was privileged to share
membership on the original Pension Task Force, must be rolling over in the
graves at such a development.
It was a very different world in the late 70’s when the act was amended to provide for and fund a
mechanism to provide cost-of-living adjustments for teachers on pension. At
that time neither the MTS nor any active teacher raised a concern about whether
the teachers then on pension had adequately funded the pension plan generally
or paid for COLA (they had done neither, though not by choice – that is the
consequence of a legislated pension plan, government decides and mandates the
amount of contributions). Rather, they committed themselves to increased
contributions above that which was paid by the civil service and agreed to
decrease other benefits in order to assure their retired colleagues that their
retirement income would be protected against the ravages of inflation.
The structure of the PAA was negotiated with an NDP
government and the final funding was negotiated with a Conservative government.
Both agreed at that time to a differing provision for COLA benefits within the
pension plan and differing contributions for teachers as compared with the
civil service. When the PAA failed to be able to pay a COLA that was close to
being equal to the increase in the CPI, it was active teachers who began to
raise concerns about that problem. They were committed to assuring fairness to
their retired colleagues in the belief, in retrospect perhaps somewhat naïve,
that when it came their turn to receive a pension that future active teachers
would share that concern. Perhaps it was just a different time and the
MTS had different values – they actually believed they existed to assure the
collective well-being of teachers, both active and retired! And, it appears the
governments of the day were more prepared to address such concerns in a fair
and reasonable fashion.
Historical background to cost-of-living adjustments:
Prior to the 1970s teachers
in receipt of pension did not enjoy any protection against the negative impact
of inflation on their pensions. In the early '70s the
government of the day recognized the extremely negative impact that had on the
financial security of retired teachers. As a result the government introduced
amendments to The Teachers’ Pensions Act to adjust all pensions by the full
effect of the consumer price index (CPI) retroactive to each teacher’s date of
retirement – in some cases this resulted in more than doubling some teachers’
pensions. The full cost of these adjustments was borne by the government.
Following this initial adjustment, the government continued to amend the Act
annually to make a similar adjustment for each successive year until 1976, in each
case with the government bearing the full cost of the pension adjustment.
In 1976 the government came to the realization that
it would be extremely expensive for it to continue this practice, so it invited
the MTS to join with it in the creation of the Pension Task Force. The mandate
of the Task Force was to discuss issues relating to The Teachers’ Pensions Act,
with special attention to the funding of the Teachers’ Retirement Allowances
Fund (TRAF) and developing a mechanism for providing future cost-of-living
adjustments (COLA). Discussions continued for four years to bring all the
issues to conclusion and recommend to the government appropriate amendments to
the act to implement the proposed changes. In order to provide for a COLA for
1977 initial amendments were introduced to create the Pension Adjustment
Account (PAA), adjust the contribution rate to provide additional funding and
transfer sufficient funding from the basic pension account (account A) to
finance the first COLA. Discussions continued in the subsequent years to
address the issue of ongoing funding for both Account A and the PAA, and to
consider other amendments sought by the MTS for pension plan improvements.
In addition to finding mutually acceptable solutions
to the outstanding issues, the Task Force also came to an agreement as to
principles covering the pension plan for Manitoba’s teachers. Among those
principles was an acceptance that teachers would accept responsibility for
experience deficiencies in Account A arising in the future, that the government
would accept responsibility for the unfunded liability disclosed at that time,
that teachers would pay contributions and accept benefit provisions that were
different from those enjoyed by the civil service under the provisions of the
Civil Service Superannuation Act and that pension improvements implemented
would normally be passed on to those already retired in respect of future
pension payments. The resulting amendments to the Act increased the pension
contribution for teachers to a rate in excess of that paid by civil servants,
provided that 16 percent of teachers contributions would be allocated to the
PAA (not 10 percent as for the civil service), provided a COLA from the PAA
that would be based on the ability of the PAA to fund pension adjustments up to
the level of the CPI (Canada) for the previous year (December over December),
and eliminated disability pensions and survivor pensions for teachers (despite
both of these being retained in the Civil Service Superannuation Act).
Teachers’ clear focus in the late '70s was to provide adequate protection against inflation to
their retired colleagues. In order to provide that protection, teachers were
prepared to reduce other benefits within the Act and make provision for life
and disability insurance plans that were largely self-financed to cover the
other contingencies they might face (little did they know at the time how
expensive that would later become, nor how much they saved the government by
eliminating disability pensions. It should also be noted that the government
pays the cost of disability insurance for civil servants). They understood that
the COLA provisions did not guarantee 100 percent of the CPI increase each
year, but that the funding of the PAA would be sufficient to cover slightly
more the rate of inflation expected by the Actuary (at the time the Actuary
projected inflation at 4.5 percent and the PAA was initially funded to provide
for a COLA in the 5-6 percent range).
Over the initial years of its operation the PAA met
its objective but unfortunately, CPI did not increase at the rate assumed by
the actuary – it was much higher. From 1977 to 1983 the adjustments to pensions
were much below the actual rate of increase of the CPI, but above the rate it
was expected to be able to pay. Teachers began to grow concerned over the
inadequacy of the PAA to provide a reasonable level of COLA but fortunately,
with declining rates of increase in the CPI and very high interest rates in the
early '80s, by 1984 the level of COLA approximated
the increase in the CPI. Over the next 15 years the PAA met teachers’ objective
of paying a COLA that approximated the increase in the CPI.
Unfortunately, other developments intervened that
have created the problem now being faced by retired teachers in receiving
completely inadequate protection against inflation after retirement. In 1984
the MTS was successful with a campaign to make full formula pensions available
at age 55. The Actuary gave his first warning in 1984 that this benefit
improvement needed to be accompanied by a contribution increase, both for
account A and the PAA. He correctly predicted that the change would result in
teachers retiring much earlier on average requiring pension payments and COLA
to be paid for much longer periods of time. Prior to 1985 the average age at
retirement was about 62 – it rapidly dropped to about age 57. That change
increased the expected duration of pension payments by 33 percent (20 years
instead of 15).
The other change was demographic – life expectancy.
In the late '70s the actuary assumed an average life
expectancy for teachers of age 77, by the year 2000 life expectancy had
increased to 81 – that increased the expected pension payment period by another
20 percent (24 years instead of 20). With the increasing feminization of the
profession over the past 30 years that figure is expected to continue to grow.
The financial implications for TRAF are substantial and have yet to be
adequately addressed, either in respect of account A or the PAA. Unfortunately,
Bill 45 addresses neither issue.
In 1984 economic circumstances were difficult. The
government was in a period of economic restraint and did not wish to allocate
further resources to public sector pension plans. Teachers were being forced to
accept minimal salary increases and the MTS was reluctant to impose on them
additional pension contributions, especially when both account A and the PAA
were disclosing surpluses. As a result it was agreed to defer the issue of
adjustments to the pension contribution rate to a future date when hopefully
economic circumstances would have improved. Unfortunately, now 24 years later
an appropriate contribution level has yet to be resolved.
Pension discussion process:
Pension discussions during the
balance of the 80’s and through the 90’s were remarkable only for their lack of success at
resolving any substantial issues. Since 2000 progress has continued to be
extremely slow at resolving the funding issues facing TRAF. While a partial
adjustment to the contribution rate improved the level of funding to Account A,
though it is still inadequate, it did little for the PAA. Teachers in receipt
of pension have seen the value of their pensions drop by over 10 percent in the
last decade. Retired teachers, through RTAM, have become more vocal in
expressing their dissatisfaction regarding the threat to their retirement
financial security but their concerns have continued to fall on deaf ears.
Discussions at the Pension Task Force were infrequent and no evident progress
was visible. Finally in 2007 the Minister appointed Mr. Tim Sale, a member of
the government, to assist with the process in an attempt to move towards a
resolution to the problem of the PAA.
Having had the opportunity to
read the Mr. Sale’s report, I find the contents quite disturbing. Being one of
the few people remaining who was party to all the discussions that established
the PAA, it is very disconcerting to read the misinformation included in the
report. In noting that Mr. Sale was a member of the government at the time of
his appointment, it cannot be a surprise that he would deliver a report that
essentially recommends what the government’s objectives have been in relation
to the problem of inflation protection for teachers’ pensions. That the conclusions
were reached with minimal attention paid to researching the history of the PAA
and considering alternative approaches to financing is surprising. That the
report is based on incorrect information is extremely disappointing.
Since the process of finding a
proposed solution to the problem commences with an incorrect premise, the
inappropriateness of the conclusions is less surprising. Mr. Sale accepted that
the intent of the Pension Adjustment Account was to deliver a two-thirds of the
consumer price index (CPI) cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). As a member of the
Pension Task Force that negotiated the implementation of the PAA, I can most
assuredly tell you that finding is absolutely incorrect. It was certainly the
government’s objective initially, since they wanted The Teachers’ Pensions Act
to mirror the Civil Service Superannuation Act, but it was an objective that
was totally unacceptable to the Manitoba Teachers’ Society at that time. As a
result, discussions continued until an acceptable resolution was achieved.
While that solution required
substantially higher contributions by teachers than by civil servants and the
acceptance of the elimination of disability and survivor benefits that civil
servants continued to enjoy, teachers chose to take these actions to provide
reasonable protection against inflation for their colleagues in receipt of
pension. The agreed funding of the PAA was to provide an annual COLA that would
be slightly greater than the Actuary’s projected increase in the CPI. In 1978
the Actuary assumed that the annual CPI increase into the future would be 4.5
percent. The initial funding level of the PAA was designed to be able to pay an
annual COLA of 5 – 6 percent. Documentation for this expected level of COLA
adjustment can be found in an article written by George Strang
published in the Manitoba Teacher in September 1977 (attached)–“The present
level of contribution is expected to offset the full increase in the cost of
living provided the cost of living does not increase more than five to six per
cent per year.”
In fact, during the first few
years of the operation of the PAA, it paid more than expected due to the high
rates of interest during that period. Instead of relying on the statement made
concurrently with the agreement by an MTS staff officer and its chief
spokesperson in those discussions, Mr. Sale chose to rely on a comment made a
decade later by the actuary in the annual valuation of the PAA. While Mr. Sale
acknowledged that the actuary was requested in 1994 to delete this comment from
the valuation report, as it was neither historically accurate nor consistent
with the clear provisions of The Teachers’ Pensions Act, he did not note that
the actuary subsequently acknowledged the inaccuracy of his comment. Instead,
Mr. Sale continued to rely on the inaccurate comment as a basis for his finding
as to the intended objective of the PAA.
The report then proceeds to
justify a reduction in the potential benefit payable from the PAA by arguing
about the potential cost of a COLA provision that would guarantee a 100 percent
COLA, claiming that is what the Retired Teachers’ Association of Manitoba
(RTAM) was seeking. Again, this misinformation is used in order to justify the
recommendations.
It is my understanding that RTAM
has never requested such a benefit guarantee. What RTAM has been requesting is
that the original intent of the PAA be honoured and that it be funded
sufficiently to accomplish that intent. It may be of interest to note that such
objective is much less costly today than it was in 1977, since the assumed rate
of increase in the CPI today is only slightly more than half of what it was in
the late '70s. With the objective in mind of
restoring the funding of the PAA to achieve its original intent solutions are
possible that are not excessively costly to active teachers, who will receive
this benefit in the future, nor to the government of Manitoba, who must share
one-half the cost of the benefit.
It is truly unfortunate that Mr.
Sale chose to accept the MTS position on the use of surplus investment return.
Surplus return should belong to all the members of the plan, not to a select
group. To restrict its use to benefit only a portion of the members has no
possible moral justification. The only other teacher pension plan that has
attempted to provide COLA through use of a PAA, British Columbia, transfers all
of the surplus return annually to the PAA, arguing that such allocation
benefits all the members.
While in my view such extent of
use of surplus to fund a COLA is neither necessary nor appropriate, neither can
I agree that none of the surplus return should be used for the benefit of
members in receipt of pension. The reality is that the greatest asset that
teachers, both active and retired, have to address any funding issues is
investment return. Fairness would dictate that a portion of the surplus
investment return should be used to support a reasonable COLA–the primary way
that a benefit can be provided for members in receipt of pension. Instead of
taking a reasonable and fair approach to finding a funding solution for the
PAA, Mr. Sale chose to accept the totally morally unjustifiable position of the
MTS and explored no alternatives.
Solutions are possible to the
funding issues of the PAA if fair and reasonable people sit down to find them.
Unfortunately, the process used by Mr. Sale appears not to have sought fair
solutions. That he brought forward recommendations that did not even come close
to meeting his restricted objective for COLA raises serious questions as to the
overall integrity of the report. The report appears to have been an attempt to
achieve preconceived objectives using misinformation and unfair restrictions to
the scope of solutions as justification for the recommendations. That is truly
distressing!
Following completion of the Sale
report, feedback was sought from the MTS and RTAM regarding his findings and
recommendations. Surprisingly, the MTS endorsed the recommendations, despite
their doing little to provide adequate COLA’s and effectively creating an
intergenerational conflict. RTAM obviously could not endorse the
recommendations since so little was accomplished that would even come close to
providing a fair and reasonable COLA provision going forward. The current
provisions of the Act have produced a COLA that has ranged from 20 to 40
percent of CPI over the past five years. The proposed amendments would likely
provide a COLA of only 35 to 50 percent of expected CPI going forward, but with
a provision that some 10 years in the future things might somehow improve
though no additional funding is provided to accomplish that.
Despite a modest increase in COLA
(to 54 percent of CPI) during the first year, no additional funding is
recommended that would substantially improve the COLA granted in any subsequent
year. Retired teachers, having already suffered through 10 years of inadequate
COLA’s, are being asked to wait another 10 years for the hope of some fairness
in their COLA provision to be realized–a entire generation of retired teachers
are faced with a lack of financial security in retirement. Somehow, Mr. Sale
and the MTS believe that current retirees should be satisfied with a minimal
COLA so that a future generation of teachers can enjoy a more adequate COLA
when they retire.
Despite the Minister’s commitment
not to subject retired teachers to a package of amendments with which they did
not agree, he and the president of the MTS decided to try and find a way around
RTAM’s objections. With no consultation with RTAM,
the Minister and the MTS devised a devious plebiscite in an attempt to justify
proceeding with amendments to implement Mr. Sale’s recommendations. Knowing
that the active teachers substantially outnumbered the teachers on pension, and
knowing that the MTS was in a much better position, both logistically and
financially, to campaign for their position, on short notice the plebiscite was
administered.
Despite disenfranchising over
6,000 members of TRAF, despite an expensive campaign based on misinformation to
engender a yes vote, and despite administering the plebiscite within time lines
that prevented many retired teachers from returning their ballots on time, only
52 percent of the ballots returned favoured the proposals. No attempt was made,
though it would have been easy to do so, to determine the votes of active
teachers as compared with retired teachers. As previously noted, only 23
percent of those who were supposed to have received the ballot voted in favour
– and they comprised only about 18 percent of all members of the plan. The Minister
and the President of MTS are declaring that to be a victory for the yes side
and justification for proceeding to amend the act to implement Mr. Sale’s
proposals. This expensive and unfair process was simply a means devised by the
government and the MTS to get around the legitimate objections of RTAM through
surreptitious means.
BILL 45 – What does it accomplish?
The bulk of Bill 45 deals with
amendments to the COLA provisions within the pension plan, and it is to that I
will address the bulk of my remarks, though one additional amendment also
requires some comment.
Section 14 of Bill 45 amends
subsection 65 (1) of the act to redefine who, other than teachers as defined in
subsection 1(1), may be an eligible employee for purposes of participation in the
teachers’ pension plan. Two significant changes are incorporated into the
amendment. Firstly, it removes the requirement that such employees be
designated by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council and authorizes the Minister to
make such designations independently. Secondly, it expands the definition of
who may be designated under this subsection to include persons holding a
certificate to teach in Manitoba but employed by a school district other than
as a teacher. It should be noted that such change is a potential attack on the
bargaining certificate of teacher associations. It allows employing school
boards to remove certain positions from the collective agreement without having
to take responsibility for pension obligations. It also creates the potential for
persons with teaching certificates but employed as teaching assistants, bus
drivers or custodians to request inclusion in the pension plan.
Currently, the pension
obligations of any employees designated under this subsection are the
responsibility of the employer, be it the MTS or the Manitoba Association of
School Trustees, through the establishment and funding of a trust fund managed
by TRAF. In the amendment, no mention is made of who is undertaking the
employers’ pension obligations for the additional group of designees. I find it
strange that the government would invite school boards to remove certain
positions from the bargaining units, and I find it shocking that the MTS would
support such potential attacks on the bargaining rights of some current members
of its local associations. I also find it strange that a government that has
claimed to champion openness and accountability would remove more decisions
from the public arena.
The sections of Bill 45
dealing with COLA provisions legislates unfairness and intergenerational
conflict. It sacrifices a generation of retired teachers to inadequate
protection against the ravages of inflation, while holding out the promise that
a future generation will be treated better. Unfortunately, it does not make any
provision for funding that will fulfill that future promise. The legislation
does open potential for contribution rates to be raised in the future through
regulation upon the recommendation of the Pension Task Force. It is strange to
delegate under statute such responsibilities to a non-statutory body that has
neither structure nor mandate spelled out in legislation, and that has no
ability to resolve any disputes that may arise in discussion. The potential for
stalemate in future discussions about contribution increases certainly is a
potential reality since that has been the experience of the past 25 years.
The potential for conflicts of
interest and cronyism are also concerns that cannot be reasonably ignored. Bill
45 decreases current provisions of the Act for a period of 10 years, without
any funding provision that would even make the decreased maximum COLA possible.
It suggests a ludicrous limit of 5.33 percent on the COLA payable during any
year in the next 10 years – for the PAA as currently funded to pay a 5.33
percent COLA in any year would require a rate of investment return averaging in
excess of 30 percent for three consecutive years.
Additionally, it suggests that
in the unlikely event that the PAA could pay more than a two-thirds of CPI COLA
in any year the excess funds cannot be used in any year in the next 10 but must
be reserved for the benefit of a future generation of teachers who might retire
after 2017. In my view, the legislation as currently drafted is in violation of
the Human Rights Act in that it discriminates against a group of older members
of the pension plan in favour of younger members who
might retire after 2017!
Funding a reasonable COLA – Is
it possible?
Solutions are possible to the
funding issues of the PAA if fair and reasonable people sit down to find them.
It is not reasonable, considering the past 24 years of neglect, to expect the
entire COLA to be funded by the contributions of active teachers, though that
appears to be the only solution acceptable to the government and MTS. More
creative and reasonable approaches must be used to resolve this matter. While I
certainly do not claim to have all the answers, this is an issue to which I
have devoted considerable attention for many years. Sources of potential
funding include the following:
1.
Over
the past 5 years the actual investment earnings of the PAA have exceeded the
credited rate by over 6 percent per year. In fairness these earnings, which
have been used to subsidize Account A, should be credited to the PAA. This
would provide approximately $40 million to the PAA.
2.
I
think it fair that active teachers through their contribution rate support the
provision of COLA, as long as the level of contribution is reasonable. I
suggest that the level of contribution to the PAA should be sufficient to
support a COLA equal to two-thirds of the expected CPI increase–a requirement
with which the MTS appears to concur. This would require an increase in the
contribution rate, and while I would defer to the Actuary to determine the
exact rate, I believe it would require approximately 1.75–2 percent of salary
to be allocated to the PAA (the current allocation is about 1.25 percent). (As
an aside I would note that any future adjustment to the contribution rate
should eliminate the current inequitable distribution that prejudices beginning
teachers severely. The contribution rate on earnings up to the yearly maximum
pensionable earnings (YMPE) under the Canada Pension
Plan should be only 70 percent of the rate on earnings in excess of that amount
since the benefit earned on the lower earnings are only 70 percent of the
benefits earned on salary on earnings above the YMPE.
Currently beginning teachers pay about $200 per year more than their fair share
so that the most highly paid members of the plan can underpay their fair share
by about $800 per year)
3.
In any
year in which the pension plan earns a rate of return in excess of that assumed
by the Actuary as necessary for supporting benefits, a portion of that excess
should be credited to the PAA. Since less than one-half of the assets of TRAF
are attributable to active teachers, it is demonstrably unfair that they should
receive all the benefit of good investment performance. It is also reasonable
that retired teachers should share in the provision of excess return to offset
the potential for adverse investment experience in some years. Therefore, in my
view, it would be fair for one-third of the excess return in any year in which
such excess occurs to be credited to the PAA. Applying this provision to the
past 5 years would have resulted in an average crediting of $56 million
annually to the PAA. This approach would accomplish two important objectives.
Firstly, it would relieve active teachers from having all the funding of the
PAA through intergenerational transfers. Secondly, it would result in retired
teaches sharing in the risks of investment performance–difficult years in the
investment market would result in lower COLA’s.
4.
It
might also be of interest to explore varying allocations of COLA in those years
when less than full CPI COLA can be paid. For example, maybe the first $1,000
of pension income should receive 100 percent COLA, then second $1,000 75
percent COLA and the excess something less as the PAA could afford. This would
assure those members of the plan most seriously affected by CPI increases
better protection against inflation while those who are more able financially
would receive less protection. It also has some justification in that the most
highly paid members of the plan, who will therefore receive the highest
pensions, are so dramatically under-contributing their fair share of pension
contributions.
As for the government’s share
of the cost of funding adequate COLA provisions, they have access to the same
sources that teachers do. That would entail some of the funding through direct
contribution to their own PAA, with allocation of surplus earnings as provided
for in the teachers’ share. While the government has not fully funded their
future obligations, retired teachers should not be punished for the past fiscal
failures of the government. If the government had undertaken full funding, as it
requires of every other employer sponsored pension plan in the province, the
funding would now be there
to
support adequate COLA as well.
One needs to consider the
message that Bill 45 sends to retired teachers. The government, and the MTS,
are telling retired teachers that their pensions are too rich and more than
they are worth so it is necessary to reduce its value through inadequate COLA.
Manitoba teachers do have the dubious distinction of receiving the lowest
pensions of any provincial teacher group in Canada. The one benefit they
thought they enjoyed despite the low pensions was that the value of the pension
would be reasonably protected against loss to inflation. Now the government of
Manitoba and the MTS are telling them that they are still too well off and
therefore their pensions must be further reduced in value by limiting their
COLA increases. I cannot think of a more negative message that one could send!
I therefore beg you, if you
have any sense of fairness or moral integrity, to withdraw Bill 45 and pursue
an actual resolution to the issue of adequate funding for the PAA that will
treat all teachers fairly. Bill 45 as currently drafted is poorly thought out,
poorly drafted and does very little to resolve the problem it pretends to address.
This assures that retired teachers will have to continue their activities in
pursuit of fairness. This bill is hopelessly inadequate to do anything other
than to promote continued intergenerational conflict and financial insecurity
to retired teachers who have dedicated their lives to the education of
Manitoba’s youth. They deserve better than this!
(excerpt from Manitoba Teacher, submitted Tom Ulrich)
Respectfully submitted,
Tom Ulrich
MTS Provincial Executive &
Chair, Pensions Committee, 1974-75
MTS Staff Officer,
1975–99
Member Pension Task
Force, 1976–99; chief spokesperson for MTS, 1993-99
Member TRAF Board,
1993–99
Coordinator,
Benefit Programs, 1993–96
Assistant General
Secretary, 1996–99
President &
CEO, TRAF, 1999-2004
*
* *
Chairperson, Minister, Committee
Members:
I am pleased to have the opportunity to present my comments
on Bill 45.
I am a retired teacher and a
director of the RTAM board, currently serving as vice-president, Pension
Committee chairperson and Pension Task Force representative. Formerly, for 10
years 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. For a further four years
I served as Chairperson of TRAF's investment
management subsidiary.
Retired teachers have been failed.
They find they have been failed by a system they thought was in place to look
after their affairs. Today, they continue to be failed by Bill 45. It's as if
we've been in a game of musical chairs and when the music has stopped the
retired teachers have been left without a chair.
What do retired teachers want?
A fair, equitable and jut
resolution of the long-standing COLA problem.
The Minister of Education and the
President of MTS have declared the Sale report and Bill 45 a "fair and
equitable" solution to the COLA problem.
These declarations do not make it
so.
Slogans, sound bites and tactics
have been abounded, but RTAM has done its own analysis with our professional
advisors. We find that Bill 45 is an unfair and inequitable resolution of the
COLA problem for retired teachers.
(RTAM has provided to the Minister
of Education a comprehensive report responding to the Sale report.)
What is the fundamental problem
with Bill 45?
The bottom line is that COLA is still underfunded. RTAM's suggested options for more significant long-term
funding resolutions have been ignored. Instead, we have gotten a funding
approach that is minimalist, piecemeal, narrow in scope and unbalanced.
The minister has also said Bill 45 is the government's
"best effort." We can only conclude this is it – no more. Why, after
20 years of unheeded warnings, can we not have a fair and long-term fix?
Why is no long-term resolution unfair?
There are three fundamental factors.
First, we paid in good faith for inflation protection
Individual teachers have paid directly for COLA protection
throughout the length of their careers. Our modelling shows that, for example,
my contributions and earnings for COLA protection were ballpark $35,000. Others
have paid significantly more. Where's our return? That is what we mean.
Mr. Sale said it is untrue when we say we paid for a COLA,
but he dismisses what we mean.
RTAM understands the structure of the COLA funding as
described by Mr. Sale – that active teacher contributions support new COLA
payments. This is used to disguise the plan flaw. The COLA account was not
funded properly in the first place. The COLA contributions by active teachers
today are insufficient to support COLA payments to a much greater number of
retirees. This is not the fault of actives nor of retirees, but of the
government and MTS.
We weren't told we were paying for someone else. Now when
it's time for our COLA we're told there isn't enough money. You have taken our
money and not fulfilled your obligations to us. Some say you have stolen our
money.
Second, Bill 45 is tantamount to asking the current
generations of retired teachers to bear the brunt of past underfunding and
inaction and now the underfunding continues:
This entails:
·
The inadequate funding in the PAA since inception;
·
The inaction, despite actuarial warnings, of the two parties
responsible–namely the government and MTS;
·
The inattention for 20 years that has caused the problem to be more
costly to fix.
·
And now the consequences resulting from the inadequate Sale funding
recommendations.
An implied social contract is being broken. This sacrificing
of a generation of retirees is unjust and unacceptable.
Some people have asked, either naively or disingenuously,
"where was the TRAF board?" During my tenure, TRAF did its
job–administered the plan according to the act and forwarded actuarial reports
with COLA warnings to those responsible for act changes–the government and MTS.
The sponsors of the plan took no action.
A further unfairness has emerged in the recent plebiscite.
Fifteen thousand actives voting on the COLA of 11,000
retirees, who are most directly and immediately affected b changes to the COLA
provisions and do not have the ability to make adjustments, as active teachers
do is offensive.
Why is Bill 45 funding inadequate?
We have supported the change in the method of interest
crediting to the better of method (crediting to the PAA of the fixed income
returns or the total fund returns, whichever is greater). It is a helpful
piece.
But it does not provide a long-term funding fix. In the
absence of more significant funding measures, it is minimalist and piecemeal
funding, mere tinkering, resulting in a minimalist outcome for retired
teachers.
How minimalist is the funding?
Mr. Sale said his funding
recommendations would result in a two-thirds COLA in the first year. Not
achieved. Does this not lead to questions about the credibility of the Sale
analysis?
The achievement of a two-thirds
COLA is very uncertain and is very dependent on low inflation and high
investment returns. Only a 52 percent of CPA COLA on average annually is
projected by the actuary. (See attachment.)
What do we mean when we say the funding
is too narrow in scope and unbalanced?
No contribution increase makes the
recommendations too narrow in scope.
The continuation of the subsidy of the actives' contribution
shortfall and the MTS prohibition on the use of surplus for the COLA problem makes
this unbalanced.
How does the government have the temerity to support
prohibition of the use of surplus by retired teachers, when there is a
scheduled transfer at the civil service of $145 million to their indexing
account?
What is needed?
More significant lump sum funding and/or a long-term funding
plan. The Sale report offers no credible plan for this.
Too few options were considered. There appears to have been
intransigence and in-the-box thinking by the plan sponsors. A multitude of
options are available, many examples used by other provinces.
Take, for example, two provinces–British Columbia and Nova
Scotia.
B.C. has provisions for a full COLA on an affordability
basis. It has always paid full COLA. It has a memorandum of agreement with a
transition period for achievement of a financial plan.
It entails:
·
An increased contribution (1 percent) by the province to deal with the
unfunded liability;
·
An increased contribution (1 percent) by teachers directed to their COLA
account;
·
Use of actuarial gains and surpluses with criteria specified during the
transition period, and more.
Additionally, the B.C. government pays a higher contribution
rate than teachers.
Nova Scotia has a memorandum of
agreement with objectives principles and implementation policies and
mechanisms. A new plan for new retirees, tied to funding levels, was agreed
upon but existing retirees were left on the old plan (unless they opted out).
The government put in $142 million.
Where's the plan for Manitoba.
What does RTAM proposed?
RTAM believes that the fairest
thing to do is implement the better of method only untied to other
recommendations. We think this is reasonable. After all the better of is using,
in part, earnings on our past contributions and is a catch-up bridging measure
to adjust for the fact that the COLA account assets have been under credited,
especially in recent years.
Then, we propose there be a
commitment to good faith discussions on long-term funding.
No movement towards a fair and
long-term solution will lead many of us to conclude that we should to the
two-tier route. If this is what active teachers want, go ahead and conclude
this deal with them. But strike a different deal with us. Fix the underfunding
of actives and give us our proportional share of the surplus.
Or give us our money back.
What is wrong with this province?
It is a lack of good faith leadership by the Government and MTS.
The government is letting its
financial self-interest bias it against its obligations as they plan sponsor.
It has been getting away for years with inaction b following the technicalities
of the COLA provisions in the act.
The technical continues in the Sale
report. However, parts of the analysis and argumentation are based on specious
premises and historical revisionism. The foundation of the report must be
questioned. Some of our advisors have called the report amateurish.
I cannot help but believe that we have been disrespected and
patronized.
Yes, this is a complex matter, but to use a favourite
quotation of my father by John Kenneth Galbraith, "complexity is a
technique to avoid simple truths."
The simple truth is retired
teachers have a moral case and we are justified in our sense of injustice. You
have a moral obligation as sponsor of the plan. Where are your moral compasses?
It is time to fulfill your moral obligations by doing the right thing for
11,000 retired teachers.
Governments in civil societies respect, and perform to,
their commitments.
A final comment:
If you insist on enforcing your authority on us on the basis
of a plebiscite 52 percent yes and a 48 percent no vote, especially when the
integrity of the vote must be questioned, as some out of province retirees
believe they have been disenfranchised by slow mail deliver, do not expect us
to think you have any moral authority in doing so. After this vote, you cannot
ignore the legitimate interests of retired teachers.
Submitted by
Anne Monk