WINNIPEG FREE PRESS COLUMN: Council’s Pension Plan Also ‘Unsustainable’

Gold Bars 1000 grams. Concept of wealth and reserve.

Over the past decade, for every dollar a member of Winnipeg’s city council put into their pension plan, taxpayers put in $4.80.

This fact seems to have been missed over the past few years, particularly when the city’s outgoing council attempted to reform the pension benefits provided to members of the Winnipeg Police Service — a pension plan Mayor Bowman called “unsustainable.”

While the cost for the police pension plan has received plenty of attention from city council, reforming their own pension plan didn’t seem to make it onto councillors’ agenda. This is surprising, as it’s Politics 101 for elected officials to lead by example if they’re going to expect those below them to follow suit.

Simply put, asking police to reform their pension while council’s own pension was also quite costly was a bit rich.

Buried at the back of the city’s Annual Financial Statements are details regarding how much council members contribute to their pension each year, as well as how much the city (taxpayers) contributes. From 2011 to 2021, council members paid a total of $1.2 million, while taxpayers put in $5.8 million.

One could certainly call this pension “unsustainable,” too.

If you graph the cost of council’s pension plan, the portion council members contribute has grown relatively slowly over the past decade. It’s a fairly smooth line. Conversely, the bill picked up by taxpayers looks more like a roller-coaster — one year it’s three times the amount council members paid, the next year it’s 10 times higher. This is because of the costly structure of the pension plan.

Council members contribute about 7.5 per cent of their income to their plan each year, while the city contributes whatever is needed as a top-up to cover the cost of the guaranteed payments offered by the plan. Needless to say, this is more than 7.5 per cent.

City council may have all kinds of reasons to justify the large bill for its pension — from recessions and “unforeseen circumstances” to inflation. What the public should note, however, is that it doesn’t have to be this way.

Edmonton also provides retirement benefits to its council members, but their benefits are far less costly. For starters, the structure of the pension plan is quite different; it’s known as a defined contribution plan, and it’s similar to an employer matching an employee’s RRSP contributions.

If an Edmonton council member puts in a dollar, the city puts in a dollar. As a result, there’s no risk for Edmonton taxpayers if there’s a recession, higher than expected inflation or other complications. This approach helps ensure Edmonton can use more of its budget for fixing potholes and policing rather than on retirement benefits for its elected officials.

Had the City of Winnipeg taken this approach in 2000, when council set up its pension plan, Winnipeg taxpayers could have saved millions — at least $5 million over the past decade alone.

Most importantly, council would be in a moral position to ask the city’s thousands of employees to curtail aspects of their pensions that have proven to be costly and out of line with what everyday Winnipeg taxpayers receive.

Reforming Winnipeg’s city council pension plan is fairly straightforward: a new council could vote to honour benefits earned to date, but begin offering less costly pension benefits to all council members going forward.

If someone has spent the past four years on council, those benefits would remain in place. However, if they’re re-elected, their new benefits would accrue on a dollar-for-dollar contribution approach.

All of this, of course, is great in theory, But if reform is going to happen, council will first need to recognize its own pension is one of the “unsustainable” costs at the City of Winnipeg.

Colin Craig is the president of SecondStreet.org, a Canadian think tank.

This column was published in the Winnipeg Free Press on September 23, 2022.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

You can help us continue to research and tell stories about this issue by making a donation or sharing this content with your friends. Be sure to sign up for our updates too!

Prevention – reduce demand in the first place

If Canadians lived healthier lives, we could reduce demand for emergency services, orthopaedic surgeries, primary care and more. 

For instance, if you visit the Canadian Cancer Society’s website, you’ll read that “about four in ten” cancer cases are preventable. The Heart and Stroke Foundation notes that “almost 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented through healthy behaviours.” A similar number of Diabetes cases are also preventable. 

Many joint replacements and visits to ERs and walk-in clinics could also be avoided through healthy living. 

To be sure, not all health problems can be avoided through healthy living – everyday the system treats Canadians with genetic conditions, helps those injured in unavoidable accidents and more.  

But there is an opportunity to reduce pressure on the health care system through Canadians shifting to healthier lifestyles – better diets, more exercise, etc. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this column. 

Partner with non-profits and for-profit clinics

European countries will partner with anyone who can help patients. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s a non-profit, a government entity or a private clinic. What matters is that patients receive quality treatment, in a timely manner and for a competitive price.  

In Canada, governments often delivery services using government-run hospitals instead of seeing if non-profit or private clinics could deliver the services more effectively. 

When governments have partnered with non-profit and private clinics, the results have often been quite good – Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia are just a few examples of where partnerships have worked well. 

Canada should pursue more of these partnerships to reduce wait times and increase the volume of services provided to patients.  

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see the links above. 

Make cross border care more accessible

In Canada, citizens pay high taxes each year and we’re promised universal health care services in return. The problem is, wait times are often extremely long in our health system – sometimes patients have to wait years to see a specialist or receive surgery. 

If patients don’t want to wait long periods, they often have to reach into their own pocket and pay for treatment outside the province or country. 

Throughout the European Union, we also find universal health care systems. But a key difference is that EU patients have the right to go to other EU countries, pay for surgery and then be reimbursed by their home government. Reimbursements cover up to what the patient’s home government would have spent to provide the treatment locally. 

If Canada copied this approach, a patient waiting a year to get their hip operation could instead receive treatment next week in one of thousands of surgical clinics throughout the developed world. 

Governments benefit too as the patient is now back on their feet and avoiding complications that sometimes come with long wait times – meaning the government doesn’t have to treat those complications on top of the initial health problem. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or this shorter video. 

Legalize access to non-government providers

Canada is the only country in the world that puts up barriers, or outright bans patients from paying for health services locally. 

For instance, a patient in Toronto cannot pay for a hip operation at a private clinic in Toronto. Their only option is to wait for the government to eventually provide treatment or leave the province and pay elsewhere. 

Countries with better-performing universal health care systems do not have such bans. They allow patients a choice – use the public system or pay privately for treatment. Sweden, France, Australia and more – they all allow choice. 

Why? One reason is that allowing choice means some patients will decide to pay privately. This takes pressure off the public system. For instance, in Sweden, 87% of patients use the public system, but 13% purchase private health insurance. 

Ultimately, more choice improves access for patients. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or watch this short clip on this topic. 

Shift to funding services for patients, not bureaucracies

In Canada, most hospitals receive a cheque from the government each year and are then asked to do their best to help patients. This approach is known as “block funding”. 

Under this model, a patient walking in the door represents a drain on the hospital’s budget. Over the course of a year, hospital administrators have to make sure the budget stretches out so services are rationed. This is why you might have to wait until next year or the year after for a hip operation, knee operation, etc. 

In better-performing universal health systems, they take the opposite approach – hospitals receive money from the government each time they help a patient. If a hospital completes a knee operation, it might receive, say, $10,000. If it completes a knee operation on another patient, it receives another $10,000. 

This model incentivizes hospitals to help more patients – to help more patients with knee operations, cataract surgery, etc. This approach also incentivizes hospitals to spend money on expenses that help patients (e.g. more doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.) rather than using the money on expenses that don’t help patients (e.g. more admin staff). 

To learn more about this policy option, please watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this post by MEI.