Evidence of meeting #86 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rcmp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Would you say that the current public service sick leave regime is fair? Is it fair to taxpayers, fair to younger, newer public service employees...?
Assistant Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
No, I don't. That's what I was trying to argue.
I think it's a very unfair system. It benefits older people who have accumulated a large bank of sick leave. I'm very aware of the system. My father was in the government for almost 40 years. He was a member of PIPSC for the last 25 years. My brother was too; he just retired. And his wife was member of PSAC. So I'm very aware of the system.
The problem is that I believe it harms, hurts, and discriminates against young people who haven't built up a large bank of sick leave. If you'll allow me, that's why I suggested that if you removed that seven-day penalty, if you will, for qualifying for short-term leave you're going to create, as an unintended consequence, huge problems inside these three unions because there are a good number of young people who would support the proposals even more strongly if it wasn't for that seven-day period. If you get rid of that, you're going to create all kinds of interesting outcomes inside the unions, even though it may not be in the papers.
To answer your question very quickly, it is unfair. What I call the “three-legged” system is used overwhelmingly across this country. It was the system I had 40 years ago in the Bank of Montreal. That's the three-tier system of short-term personal leave, followed by short-term insurance leave, and then long-term leave.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Therefore, would you say that the new proposed changes—and they are just proposed changes, as they're still subject to negotiation—are fair?
Assistant Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
Absolutely, with the caveat I just provided in my opening comments, that I really urge you to get rid of that seven-day waiting period to access short-term leave. Again, I will repeat, a lot of people have been contacting me because I'm well known, am tenured, and don't belong to any party, and don't consult. I've had younger people in PIPSC and PSAC contact me to say, I would really support it if that seven-day exemption or penalty wasn't there.
If you get rid of that I think it's going to change the whole dialectic.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Have other levels of government already adopted changes similar to what we're proposing?
Assistant Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
I've got it and I'd have to provide it to the committee after the fact, but I've started to survey all of the provincial jurisdictions and a smattering of some the larger municipal jurisdictions as proxies
According to the Mercer database, 97% of employees in this country cannot bank sick leave. I can't bank my sick leave. We have a very good three-tier sick leave program at Carleton, as do other universities. I checked Queen's and they have one that's very similar to ours.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Is there any system in the private sector that's similar to the current sick leave regime in the public service?
Assistant Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
Not to my knowledge. I think that the idea of banking went away a long time ago. It's starting to disappear in the public sector. It went away a long time ago.
As I said, I was in the Bank of Montreal in the 1970s where we had the system the government is now proposing for the Government of Canada. It's what I call the three-tiered stool. There is short-term personal leave with no documentation required—that's personal leave—followed by short-term leave administered by the insurance company, followed by long-term leave. I just think it's a much fairer system, partly because the personal leave requires no documentation, whereas right now you've got this cumbersome system where every time you have a sniffle you have to go off to find a doctor. In contrast, under the five, or six, or seven-day personal leave system, there are no questions asked. It could be a funeral or you're just tired. You don't have to go through that rigmarole. And then short-term leave is for when you really do have a problem, if you break your leg skiing on the weekend or something like that. It helps young people who don't have a bank of sick leave.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Can you expand further on why you think it's important that we make these changes at this time?
Assistant Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
These changes should have been made 40 years ago, 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago. I was moving my daughter and her beautiful new identical twin granddaughters on the weekend. There's no good time to move. It's always a bad time to move. It's always a bad time to introduce change where you're taking something away from somebody that they've become used to. Is it a good time right now? I guess there's no time like the present.
I don't say that flippantly, because there's never a good time to make controversial changes.
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to begin with division 18.
The Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act was flawed in that it made no mention of the Access to Information Act. This omission means that records can't be destroyed until after any pre-existing access to information cases are closed. In April 2012, the Information Commissioner wrote to your minister about this legal requirement and asked that records not be destroyed. On May 2, the minister acknowledged her letter and promised that the RCMP would abide by the access to information law on these matters.
What's your interpretation of the RCMP's legal obligations at that time?
Chief Strategic Policy and Planning Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I indicated in my remarks, at the time we were working with the requester to process his information. We eventually provided him with the information that was contained in a previous access to information request, which he was allowed to have, and which was relevant and responsive to his request. That's the position we've taken, that we met our obligations under the Access to Information Act.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
So why would we even need division 18 of Bill C-59, because it effectively retroactively makes legal what seems to have been illegal at the time. Why do we even need that section?
Chief Strategic Policy and Planning Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
We would prefer not to comment on draft legislation at this time.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Was it the Public Safety Minister who ordered the RCMP to destroy the records at that time?
Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
What happened was that we developed a plan to implement the Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act. In the run-up to its coming into force, we developed that plan and, following consultation with senior government officials, it was approved. Once the legislation came into effect, we proceeded with implementing the process to be able to destroy the information. We were complying with the requirements of the Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act while still maintaining or responding to the requirements under the Access to Information Act.
Liberal
Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Which process do you mean?
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I mean the process of determining which records would be destroyed.
I remind you that there was a letter from the minister from May 2, 2012, promising that the RCMP would abide by the access to information law for all of the existing requests.
Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
It was the RCMP's responsibility to comply with the access to information legislation, which we did by maintaining a copy of the information contained in fields that were relevant and responsive, as I said in my opening comments, and that didn't contain private information. We maintained a copy of that to be able to respond to any access to information requests, but at the same time, we proceeded with the implementation of destroying the long-gun registry-related information in the system.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Can the RCMP confirm whether the OPP's investigation into the RCMP on this matter is currently active?
