Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
Symbol of the Government of Canada

ARCHIVED - Expenditure Review of Federal Public Sector - Volume Two - Compensation Snapshop and Historical Perspective, 1990 to 2003


Warning This page has been archived.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.


Endnotes–Volume Two


Chapter 1. Introduction

[1] Statistics Canada reported the RCMP population as 17,455. The discrepancy apparently arises from methodological issues. We use the RCMP's number in order to facilitate multi-year comparisons.

[2] This domain fluctuates in size more than most over the course of the year because of variation in the number of students employed.

[3] Economic increases are the general salary increases negotiated through collective bargaining; restructuring increases are adjustments to the pay ranges of particular groups and levels such as the addition or deletion of pay increments, the consolidation of regional pay rates, or the consolidation of the pay bands of two or more occupational groups.

[4] We use the term "employee movement" here as a shorthand term for the combined effect of salary increments within pay bands, classification change, and external mobility on average salaries.

Chapter 2. Total Compensation in the Core Public Service and Separate Employer Domains

[5] To provide details by compensation component, it is necessary to use estimates. For salaries and wages (payroll), in fact, we have three estimates. The figure of about $9 billion that appears in Table 2001, was calculated as described in that chapter. A second estimate of about $8.8 billion was estimated using average salaries and monthly figures on population, and the number of days worked per month. This method is consistent with the method used to estimate other compensation components as well. The third estimate, about $9.2 billion is used where we want to calculate average salaries for specific classification groups and departments at a point in time, namely March 2003. In consideration of these complexities, we use the middle figure, $9 billion, for our analysis of total compensation. In consideration of these complexities, we use the middle figure, $9 billion, for our analysis of total compensation.

[6] Further to the above footnote, we use $9 billion as the most reasonable estimate for salaries and benefits over the whole fiscal year. The average salary of $54,410, which appears in Tables 2006 and 2007 and elsewhere is the estimated average salary for March 2003.

[7] Appendix D of Volume One defines the separate employer domain.

[8] As noted earlier, we are describing the organization as it existed in March 2003.

[9] It is important to note that March is a low staffing period for Parks Canada. During the summer, employees usually number over 5,000.

[10] In 1987, Statistical Survey Operations was established as a separate employer reporting to the Minister Responsible for Statistics Canada. SSO employs interviewers who are engaged in survey collection activities. The interviewers' work is managed by Statistics Canada's regional offices.

[11] Note that some separate-employers cost elements, such as employer contributions for the Supplementary Death Benefit, are included in the core public service totals, because we were not able to disaggregate them.

[12] The salary total in March 2003 was $3,489 million. The figure given in Figure 2008 is an estimate for 2002–03 as a whole.

[13] Excluding CSIS, as noted earlier in this chapter. CSE is not reported separately.

Chapter 3. Why Overall Employment and Average Salary Increased

[14] Most of the remaining reduction (about 4,500 employees) resulted from the transfer of the Coast Guard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. There was a further reduction in corporate services staff of at least 1,000.

[15] We were unable to obtain a specific estimate.

[16] We are not suggesting these amounts cover an equivalent volume and quality of services.

[17] This figure is limited to adding the two PWGSC and one HRDC cases described. The estimated salary figure results from multiplying 2,750 by the average 2003 core public service salary. Other cases of privatization and devolution would likely add at least another 1,000 equivalent staff effectively funded by the federal government. As one other example, we would cite the case of flight training in the Department of National Defence, which transferred about 160 employees.

[18] Note that this figure covers the whole federal government, not just the core public service and separate employer domains.

[19] Up to 1994–95, approved contracts were reported by fiscal year. Starting in 1995, to comply with NAFTA requirements, the reports are by calendar year. Evidently the reports for 1994–95 and for 1995 partly overlap and count some contracts twice. The figures given include contract amendments. The actual amounts spent may be less than the amounts approved.

[20] The Public Accounts figures differ from the PWGSC contracting report numbers for several reasons: the former counts spending in a given year, the latter contract awards, some of which may cover several years. The PWGSC numbers also include some items from other standard objects besides 04.

[21] During this period, Public Accounts figures on legal services contract expenditures rose from about $60 million to over $130 million. The difference between these figures and the Crown agent expenditures is likely attributable to cost recovery of legal services by Justice from other departments.

[22] Even when funding is allocated by Cabinet through a policy decision, the detailed allocation of funds to a Department must be approved by the Treasury Board.

[23] As we have emphasized before, employee totals vary according to the point in time used, and exactly what source is used. The data used here are the average of the end-of-quarter annualized figures, derived from the payroll system. CCRA became the Canada Revenue Agency in December 2003, when the Customs element was transferred to the new Canada Border Services Agency.

[24] Note that funding to cover salary increases will be considered separately later in this section.

[25] This analysis is based on studying items included in the Annual Reference Level Update (ARLU) used to adjust departmental budgets. The categories, and the allocation of items to the categories, are based on our assessment. Some of the choices are debatable but our purpose is to illustrate the nature of new resource approvals, not to give a definitive accounting.

[26] Three quarters is the approximate proportion that the March 2003 population for the combined core public service and the separate employer domains (240,000) bears to the whole population covered by these transfers (about 330,000).

[27] On the same basis as described in endnote 13.

[28] A recent Treasury Board analysis suggests for the whole government the size of these components was: capital (-$0.9 billion), non-personnel operating (-$0.7 billion), grants and contributions (-$0.4 billion), and increased revenues ($0.6 billion).

[29] The Public Service 2000 working group on classification recommended that these categories be abolished, mainly because they were seen as perpetuating what could be thought of as "castes" in the public service. They are still useful, however, as an analytical frame.

[30] Note that the populations represented in Table 2019 and Figure 2013 are somewhat larger than we reported earlier. They include categories such as students, ministerial staff, and Order-in-Council appointees whose inclusion has little impact on the reported patterns.

[31] Appendix M is entitled "Summary of Population Changes Since 1991 in Classification Groups with at least 2,000 Members in March 2003."

[32] Appendix G is entitled "Analysis for Selected Classification Groups of the Distribution of Employees by Classification Level, 1991–2003."

[33] Note that we included the former Senior Manager (SM) group with EX1 in 1991 because amalgamation was implemented shortly after.

Chapter 4. How Structural Change Occurs

[34] The exception was Assistant Deputy Minister positions (EX levels 4 and 5). Positions proposed at these levels required, until recently, classification approval by the Treasury Board. TBS also continued to provide advice to departments on interpreting the standards.

[35] We have generally considered the core public service and the separate employer domains together in this volume. In this case we have limited the data to the core public service domain, and made the appropriate exclusions in the early years to ensure a consistent base. Because we are only offering this information as a broad indication of trends, we concluded the extra effort and complexity of adding the separate employers data was not justified.

[36] The figure of 5,604 indeterminate appointments differs from figures presented in Figure 2029, in that the 5,604 number includes full-time, part-time, and seasonal indeterminate appointments.

[37] While a significant change may have occurred, a majority of the work must remain the same.

[38] The reclassification data was constructed jointly by the Classification Program Management Division of PSHRMAC and by the Appointments Information and Analysis Directorate of the PSC. The Classification Division's Position and Classification Information System (PCIS) records were analyzed to develop a profile of each reclassification. These profiles were extracted and reconciled with data in the PSC's Job-Based Analytical Information System (JAIS). This process generated the number of reclassifications that resulted in promotion activity affecting indeterminate full-time employees for the years 1996–1997 through 2003–2004.

[39] We understand that about 1,420 positions were earmarked for reclassification. We do not have the exact number of incumbents (actual employees) who were affected, but 1,100 seems a reasonable estimate.

[40] Data before that year are not considered reliable, so we omitted them.

[41] These figures have been validated jointly by the Appointments Information and Analysis Directorate of the PSC and the Organization and Classification Branch of PSHRMAC. There are no doubt some errors relating to reporting rigour, but we believe the figures are satisfactory for analyzing trends, which is our purpose here.

[42] The figures for the period from 1999 onwards exclude the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and the Parks Canada Agency. For the period before 1992 they include employees in the Senior Manager (SM) group, as well as the Executive (EX) group.

[43] The 10% maximum is for the EX 1 to 3 levels, which include over 90% of EXs. For Assistant Deputy Ministers (EX4 and EX 5 levels) the maximum is 15%. For Deputy Ministers, the maximum ranges from 15% to 25% according to their level.

[44] It must be noted that the estimated cost increase relating to in-range salary adjustments overstates the actual net cost. This is because when an Executive retires, for example, his or her replacement likely starts at or near the bottom of the salary band, thus countering the effect on the total salary mass of salary increases for other Executives.

[45] In accordance with the 2003 Public Service Labour Relations Act, most LA employees are expected to become union members with the right to negotiate their remuneration through collective bargaining. Under the previous Act, Department of Justice lawyers were prohibited from joining a union.

[46] Strictly speaking we have only included the three largest separate employers (i.e. CCRA, CFIA and the Parks Canada Agency), due to data limitations for small agencies. In March 2003, these three organizations constituted 88% of the separate employer domain.

[47] The figures for these years were as follows, with the constant 2003 dollar figure in brackets for each year: 1982–83 - $25,113 ($45,431); 1983–84 - $27,238 ($46,823); 1984–85 - $28,469 ($47,078); 1985–86 - $28,827 ($45,794); 1986–87 - $30,925 ($47,180); 1987–88 - $31,876 ($46,597); 1988–89 - $32,355 ($45,417).

[48] We should note in relation to Table 2038 that the substantial jump in constant dollar salaries in the core public service and the corresponding drop for the separate employer domain from 1998–1999 to 1999–2000 resulted mainly from the transfer of Revenue Canada to the status of a separate employer as the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

[49] We must note the impact of the separation of CCRA, CFIA and Parks Canada from the core public service domain during the years under review. Because CCRA is large, with a lower average salary than the rest of the core public service, its establishment as a separate employer generated a sudden upward shift in the average salary of the core public service domain. The total cumulative increase in average salaries reported in Figure 2040 covers both the core public service and the separate employer domains. However, the collective bargaining data is only available for the core public service domain.

[50] Table 2041 is based on calendar year data. Our general approach is to focus on fiscal years. Because most of 1997 (i.e. nine months of the 1997 calendar year) falls in the fiscal year period from 1997–98 to 2002–03, and most of the 2003 calendar year falls outside the period), we disregard the 2003 information in this analysis.

[51] In practice, "economic increases" are normally agreed somewhere in the middle of the period to which they apply. Thus, they partly involve forecasting what inflation will be.

[52] Growth rates are multiplicative rather than additive. All of the increase for 1997 were included because they were not fully implemented until after March 1998.

Chapter 5. Financing increases in the Total Salary Mass

[53] For new policies, the Cabinet provides the substantive approval. However, the specific resourcing proposals to implement the policy must be accepted by the Treasury Board. Salary mass growth relating to recognized workload increases or investments to strengthen an existing program are dealt with directly by the Treasury Board. Thus all spending increases pass through the Treasury Board for detailed approval.

[54] The wide variance in the estimate results from the fact that Treasury Board systems are not designed to record detailed information for the purpose of tracking salary approvals specifically. We reconstructed the figures, despite our inability to resolve various ambiguities definitively.

[55] Departments could also, in certain cases, have transferred money from autonomous revenues such as fees charged to the public or other departments.

[56] We obtained this by adding the average salaries for 1998–99 through 2002–03 and dividing by 5. We use this average to reflect the fact that salary mass increases were approved gradually over the whole period. This is, however, almost certainly a conservative estimate, since there are many indications that new employees were generally highly skilled and educated, and therefore better paid.

[57] This proportion corresponds to the difference between the estimate of $1.8 billion as the cost for hiring 37,000 new employees over the five years, and the evaluation at about $1.3 billion to $1.6 billion as the amount of policy/workload salary approvals through Cabinet and the Treasury Board.

[58] We used the current dollar figure, since this is what must be financed.

Chapter 6. Other Compensation Elements

[59] This figure includes about $48 million for the separate employers. This makes the totals for 1994–95 and 2002–03 reasonably comparable.

[60] It is important to observe that this is a clear example of the federal government as an employer deciding to "set an example" on a social policy matter, in this case promoting a close relationship between parents and their new child during his or her first year of life.

[61] The 52-hour workweek is reported in the November 2002 preliminary findings of the Association of Professional Executives (APEX) report The Health Status of Executives in the Public Service of Canada, page 3.

[62] In practice, the employer likely pays somewhat more than the employees. Employees may receive a refund for overpayments, whereas employers cannot.

[63] Prior to a wide-ranging legislative reform in 1997, this program was known as Unemployment Insurance.

[64] Note that the salary mass is divided by 261 (the full year minus weekends) to yield this figure. The salary mass used is an estimation based on average salaries, monthly figures on population and the number of days worked per month.

[65] In this analysis, we count all employees who used any sick leave during the year. With term and casual employees moving in and out during any given year, this total is higher than the March populations we report normally as the "population."

[66] Average sick leave usage in CCRA in 2002–03 was 13 days, 12.5 days in 2001–02, and 13 days in 2000–01.

[67] See page 6.30 of the Public Accounts of Canada, 2002–03, in the chapter on "Interest-bearing debt."

[68] For the period before 1998–99, this line is based on an estimation model that is believed to be reasonably accurate.

[69] In fact, the data in Figure 2055 shows a much lower rate of separations in the few years following Program Review compared with the few years just before.

[70] This link to sick leave credits was later dropped. The original requirement seems to underpin the idea among some employees that unused sick leave was at one time cashable at the time of departing from the public service.

Chapter 7. Public Service Pension Plan

[71] On January 1, 2006, the contribution rate rose to 7.8% and 4.3% respectively. It will increase further in coming years as explained in Chapter 13 of Volume One, which includes the pension recommendations.

[72] This surplus is the subject of litigation by the public service unions, which claim that any surplus should be shared by the employer for the benefit of employees.

[73] The Quebec Pension Plan is distinct from the Canada Pension Plan, and managed independently. However, the salient features of the QPP such as contribution rates and benefits have in practice remained identical to the CPP.

[74] We chose 1986 as the starting point, since this was the last year that the CPP/QPP rates were the same as in the start-up year of 1966. We use calendar years because CPP/QPP rates are set on that basis.

[75] The CPP/QPP year's basic exemption was $2,500 in 1986. It rose annually until 1996, when it reached $3,500. It has been fixed at that level ever since. The year's maximum pensionable earnings was $25,800 in 1986. It has been adjusted upward each year, reaching $39,900 in 2003.

[76] Note that these contributions relate to both the regular pension plan, and the amounts contributed to the Retirement Compensation Arrangements Account (RCA) which covers that portion of pensionable salary that exceeds the limits provided for in the Income Tax Act.

[77] Key examples of other types of contributions include contributions for past service, amortization and indexing charges; Appendix P.

[78] For another perspective, employer pension contributions as a proportion of salary in the combined core public service and separate employer domains grew more or less from year to year, from about 6% in 1991–92 to about 14.5% in 2002–03.

Chapter 8. Insurance and Other Employee Benefits

[79] This reduction in the Supplementary Death Benefit value after age 66 was also the subject of private litigation. In January 2006, the British Columbia Superior Court rejected the claim that the phasing out of the Supplementary Death Benefit represented discrimination on the basis of age. The judgement is currently being appealed by the plaintiffs.

[80] Both the employer and employee contributions cover pensioners and certain Crown corporations that participated in the plan. Over the years some of these have withdrawn, most notably Canada Post in 2001.

[81] Between these two dates, the premiums remained relatively low until 2000–01, mainly because of various premium holidays.

[82] The figures here are for the calendar year 2002, since the insurance underwriter reports on that basis. Figures in the overview of total compensation for the core public service domain in Chapter 9 have been prorated to cover the fiscal year 2002–03.

[83] This figure is derived by dividing the number of current claimants by the existing insured plan population. Because some individuals began their claims years ago and may not be part of the employee population at this time, this figure is not exact, but rather an illustrative indicator. An increase over time in the disability rate for a given plan indicates that the population is using the plan more intensively.

[84] The other source of DI Plan funding was interest on the accumulated surplus.

[85] This amount is estimated based on the number of injury-on-duty leave days reported (50,752) and the average salary of employees.

[86] This is the current title. This was part of Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) until December 12, 2003 at which point the title was change to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. On February 6, 2006 the current title was adopted.

[87] "New claims" relating to workers compensation is only a gross indicator of volume since the same individual may have more than one claim, and some claims may be rejected or not entail any costs.

[88] As for the insurance plans, the health and dental plan administrators report on a calendar year basis.

[89] This amount is a prorated amount based on the ratio of population between the core public service and the separate employer domains.

[90] The NJC was established in 1944 by Order-in-Council to provide a forum for the federal employer and employee representatives to work together on issues of shared concern.

[91] This recommendation is in paragraph 6.47 of a 1988 Auditor General report. The AG forecasted savings of $2.2 to $2.5 million from reduced provincial taxes

[92] Interestingly, 1992 was also the year that as many as 50,000 members left the PSHCP as Canada Post established its own plan. PSHCP membership nevertheless fell only by about 28,000 as the move to 100% employer funding induced many public servants to join the Plan.

[93] Apparently this reduction was intended to continue only until the surpluses were exhausted. Although this occurred in 2000, the pensioner contribution rate has not reverted to 25%.

[94] This is true in practice. However, since the PSAC and NJC sub-plans are negotiated separately, differences could emerge in the future.

[95] PSDCP employer contributions are a taxable benefit in Quebec, as are employer contributions under the PSHCP.

[96] The Federal Court found that some allowances, which had been frozen by the Public Service Compensation Restraint Act in 1983, were in fact subject to indexing. At the same time, the unions agreed that the Government could terminate the "Unemployment Insurance premium rebate program," and apply these savings toward the cost of the Dental Care Plan. In effect, full premium payment by the Treasury Board was a tradeoff for leaving the allowances alone and for dropping the UI premium rebates. (The rebates are premium reductions granted to employers with health care plans that reduce or eliminate recourse to UI sickness benefits.)

Chapter 10. Compensation in the Canadian Forces Domain

[97] Determining the number of reserve members is not straightforward. The number on the books includes, for example, reservists who have left the organization, but have not yet been released, and those exempt from training and duty. And the number fluctuates through the year, as people come and go and change their category of service. So we are using the best available estimate of what could be termed the "active" reserve members.

[98] This is the total reported by National Defence as the end-of-year annualized cost. In this case the estimated cost of $3.686 billion is a product of the population on March 31, 2003 and the pay rates of April 2002. Statistics Canada reports a figure of about $4 billion, but we understand that this includes base pay as well as allowances, regional differentials and severance pay. For this more detailed analysis, we considered it preferable to use the National Defence estimate.

[99] Technically pilots are considered General Service Officers with a pay differential to meet labour market pressures.

[100] Note that there are separate entry-level benchmarks as well for the ranks of Private and Second Lieutenant, and internal relativity benchmarks such as Chief Warrant Officer to Captain.

[101] There is believed to have been some imprecision in counting active reservists for the period prior to 2000. Nevertheless, these figures are as reported by Statistics Canada.

[102] Data were not available to separate regular members' pay from reservists' pay before 1993–94.

[103] This phrase is extracted from a 1998 DND aide-mmoire on "Total Compensation."

[104] The "Compensation reserve" is an amount earmarked in the Government's fiscal framework to cover the anticipated costs for salary increases from collective bargaining or Treasury Board decisions to increase the salaries of unrepresented staff.

[105] These inputs to the salary mass for the Canadian Forces add up to about $0.83 billion, which is greater than the actual increase of about $0.78 billion. Such a variance is not unreasonable since some of our estimates depend on assumptions about the split in funding between the military and civilian sides of the Department that are difficult to verify.

[106] This has been the case since the late 1990s, when General Service Officers (including Lieutenant-Colonels) received a 14.7% comparability adjustment, but Colonels did not, since their pay is tied to the public service Executive pay rates.

[107] This incentive program ran out in July 2003 and was not renewed since competition from external employers had subsided.

[108] Where the value of the AAA was greater than the PLD, the latter has continued to be paid on a grandfathered basis. Such cases by now are rare.

[109] These amounts are educated guesses by a Treasury Board analyst familiar with the history of these allowances.

[110] Canadian Forces management is not satisfied that this policy treats members fairly, compared with public servants. For the latter, collective bargaining agreements are implemented back to the expiry of the previous contract.

[111] The CF pays a reduced EI premium given that CF members will not generally benefit from EI. The total associated EI rebate for the Canadian Forces was $2,675,958 for 2002–03. This money is not returned to members but is directed to the Canadian Forces Dental Care program. The exception was the approximately $0.78 million that was returned to those approximately 15,000 to 20,000 CF members that elected not to participate in the CF Dental Care program.

[112] The Canadian Forces pension plan is compulsory for regular members. Reserve members who are former contributors or annuitants and who serve full time ("class C reserves") for a period of more than a year are deemed to be re-enrolled in the plan. A plan is now being developed to provide pension benefits under a special plan for other members of the reserves.

[113] The rules for entitlement to an unreduced pension were changed by legislation in late 2003. Until these amendments, the vesting period was 10 years. Those leaving with less service were only entitled to a return of contributions with modest interest. As for the main plan, the contribution rate for Canadian Forces members rose to 4.3% and 7.8% in January 2006.

[114] As for the main plan, the contribution rate for Canadian Forces members rose to 4.3% and 7.8% in January 2006.

[115] Appendix  Q is entitled "History of Employer and Member Contributions to the Canadian Forces Pension Plan, 1946-47 to 2002–03." This Appendix does not include contributions to the Retirement Compensation Arrangements (RCA) Account, but it does include elective contributions in respect of past service. The RCA Account handles contributions in respect of that part of a member's salary that exceeds the pensionable salary limits set out in the Income Tax Act..

[116] The issue of whether to allow retired military members to collect their full military pension while accepting full-time employment with the regular public service was controversial at some points in the past. In 1923, for example, it was agreed that retired officers who had served abroad in World War I could retain that part of their military pension equal to the difference between their public service salary and the salary level on which their military pension was based. In 1950, this approach was extended to retired military members generally. In 1975 it was decided to eliminate reductions in CFSA pensions for members re-employed in the public service, in order to facilitate the hiring of well-qualified military retirees into the public service.

[117] The Canadian Forces Dental Service provides comprehensive dental care to all members. Services are limited to normal established treatments, and do not include cosmetic treatment, unless it is required due to accident or traumatic injury. Major restorative, prosthodontic and surgical services, unless required as a direct result of military service, are normally limited to members with at least three years of completed service, who have sufficient time remaining in their current service commitment to complete the procedures and required follow-up.

[118] These can opt in, in certain circumstances. Their dependants are only covered if the reservist serves full time.

[119] The cost-sharing was 50/50 from 1971 until 1990. In July 1990, the formula was changed to 67%/33% favouring the members, and in September of the same year to 75%/25%.

[120] This figure was taken from a 1990 Auditor General report. It appears that the stated amount included infrastructure costs for the four largest military hospitals, but not for smaller facilities. See paragraph 23.15 of the AG report..

Chapter 11. Compensation in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Domain

[121] These are included in the core public service domain described in Section 1, so they are not considered further in this section.

[122] The RCMP Pay Council has its own specific definition of "total compensation" which has been accepted by the Treasury Board. It is comprised of salary, allowances and benefits including pension entitlement.

[123] This report provides only a brief overview of the work of the Pay Council. For more detail, refer to the document entitled The History of the RCMP Pay Council, March 2004.

[124] In 1999, Calgary was dropped and Halifax added to the comparator forces to attain better national balance.

[125] The regular work day for RCMP members is 8 hours, not the 7.5 hours standard in the regular public service.

[126] This number is larger that the 675 CP members identified in Table 2094. The larger number includes anyone who would have received the allowance at some time during the year.

[127] The RCMPSA was passed in 1960, following the modern PSSA by six years.

[128] In 2002–03 there were differences. For example, there was a vesting period of 10 years for RCMP members, two for PSSA members. This has since been reduced to two years by regulation, to align with the other public service pension plans.

[129] This amount, and the employer contribution, include amounts attributed to the Superannuation Account, the Pension Fund, and the Retirement Compensation Arrangement Account for current service.

[130] Appendix R is entitled "History of Employer and Member Contributions to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Plan, 1949-1950 to 2002–03." This Appendix does not include contributions to the Retirement Compensation Arrangements (RCA) Account, but it does include elective contributions in respect of past service. The RCA Account handles contributions in respect of that part of a member's salary that exceeds the pensionable salary limits set out in the Income Tax Act.

[131] As for the other plans, the employer/member contribution ratio in regard to the Retirement Compensation Arrangements Account is very favourable to the members. In 2002–03 the employer contributed about 97% of the costs covering pension credits relating to the portion of an individual's salary above the Income Tax Act limits for registered pension plans.

[132] This covers regular and civilian members, and a small number of CSIS employees who had been RCMP members.

[133] For the PSHCP, the count covers members with dependants; for the DCP, the number counts the number of dependants with claims.

[134] Information on leave usage is from the RCMP's internal reporting system. That system indicates the leave relates to a total of 21,560 members. This number certainly involves some people coming and going over the year. In calculations, we have used the March 2003 population of regular and civilian members (18,026) reported at the beginning of the section on the RCMP.

Chapter 12. Other Groups—Judges, Parliamentarians, Employees of Parliament, Ministerial Staff and Students

[135] In autumn 2004, the Government announced its intention to amend the legislation to decouple parliamentary compensation from that of federally appointed judges. To this end, Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Salaries Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts was introduced in the House of Commons December 3, 2004 and received Royal Assent on April 21, 2005.

[136] This historical summary is largely distilled from the May 2000 Report of the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission, chaired by Richard Drouin.

[137] The figures for the first two years cited are based on multiplying the judges' salary by the number of judges, so the actual amount could be as much as $10 million off. For 2002–03 the figure is as reported by the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs.

[138] This is the Government's general-purpose account. Judges appointed before February 1975 contribute only 1.5% of their salary.

[139] This was done because the average age of judges is much higher than that of public servants, so the claim experience could be expected to be higher.

[140] This increase is included in the salaries and allowances reported in the previous paragraph. The amount, according to the Parliament of Canada Act was the lesser of the Industrial Aggregate Index minus 1%, or the Consumer Price Index minus 1%.

[141] $26.3 million relates to the Senate and about $13 million to the Library of Parliament.

[142] "Exempt" refers to not being subject to the requirements of the Public Service Employment Act.

[143] In December 2003, new guidelines were adopted, providing for senior exempt staff to receive higher salaries, but within the total salary budget in place.

[144] It, and its predecessor program, had been administered through the Canada Employment Centres since 1983.

Chapter 13. Compensation in Federal Business Enterprises and Other Crown Corporations

[145] Not only is information spotty, but different sources give very different numbers. This no doubt arises from the use of different definitions of "employee," for example. Depending on the source, data could reflect full-time permanent employees, or all those drawing a pay cheque; or it could deal just with the parent corporation, or consolidate data from its subsidiaries.

[146] This relates to Canada Post only, and leaves out its various subsidiaries such as Purolator.

[147] Page 14 of the First Report of the Advisory Committee on Senior Level Retention and Compensation, January 1998.

[148] It is important to observe that the amount paid to any individual CEO may be above or below the declared job rate. For example, it was reported publicly that the Canada Post CEO in 2002–03 was paid below the job rate for group 10.

[149] Refer to page 9 of the Advisory Committee's Sixth Report, May 2003. In December 2004 in its Seventh Report to the President of the Treasury Board, the Advisory Committee recommended that the Privy Council Office compensation policy for CEOs of Crown corporations be based on a comparison of Group 1 total compensation to total compensation at the 50th percentile of the Hay Total Canadian Market.  The government implemented this practice in 2005.