On September 22, Quebec's Chamber of Damage Insurance (CHAD) published an editorial (Une formation continue et adaptée à la réalité) by Jannick Desforges, Director of Institutional Affairs and Compliance. After reading the editorial, the RCCAQ would like to emphasize to its members that CHAD is the one that needs to be brought back to reality.

Training Act: an important nuance

As regards mandatory training in the areas of ethics and professional conduct, Ms. Desforges declares, “CHAD has been tasked with providing such training to its members since January 1, 2016”. However, amendments to the legislation in question state quite clearly that CHAD may develop and provide this training or partners may provide it as well. For over a year, the RCCAQ has undertaken multiple initiatives aimed at offering this training to its members. However, the requirements for partners wishing to provide this training are simply unattainable and economically unviable. The organizations selected by CHAD to offer this training recently came to the same conclusion. Are we supposed to conclude that CHAD is acting in bad faith when it comes to developing training partnerships?

Riddled with incompetence?

Ms. Desforges also notes that “CHAD's mandatory training course for the 2016-2017 reference period (…) presents various relevant practice-related examples and addresses deficiencies regularly observed during investigations carried out by CHAD's Bureau du syndic and inspections carried out by CHAD's Inspection Department”. Upon reading the editorial, one might be led to believe that every certified representative in Quebec requires corrective action. But we actually need to put things back in perspective. Since 2005, CHAD has carried out more than 1,375 inspections of firms employing fewer than 24 brokers. Such firms account for less than 25% of regulated brokers. When the sample involves small firms only, are we supposed to conclude that the entire profession is riddled with incompetence? Ms. Desforges says that this training is beneficial, but are we supposed to conclude that all professionals working in the industry require swift corrective action? Let's not fool ourselves.

Role confusion

Later on in CHAD's editorial, a statistic is mentioned: “92% of CHAD's members believe that it is important to take part in professional development activities in order to exercise their profession." The RCCAQ also believes that training enables certified representatives to stay on top of their skills. We are mindful of the fact that training is an essential service for our members.

But what is CHAD's role in offering services to members? Is it CHAD's role to qualify people as members and not as regulated individuals, as it is supposed to? CHAD is a self-regulating organization (SRO); it is not an association. Brokers, agents and claims adjusters do not expect to receive services from an SRO.

On June 7, La Presse+ published an article entitled "Les ordres protègent-ils le public ou leurs membres?" This article included excerpts from an IRIS study. The article stated: “It is clear that the primary mission of Quebec's professional orders is supposed to be protecting the public, whereas promoting professional interests is supposed to be task of associations and unions. But today the professional orders are torn between these two roles, which means that they all too often slide into corporatism” [i.e. cronyism]. Is it part of CHAD's mission to offer a training platform with discounted rates? Or is that sliding into cronyism?

Revealing statistics

In its editorial, CHAD notes, “According to a survey carried out in 2015, 15% of the members who responded were dissatisfied with the variety of training activities on offer.” Looked at from a different angle, the satisfaction rate was 85%! According to industry standards, an 85% satisfaction rate may be qualified as good to very good. It is unacceptable that CHAD would attempt to justify training development and investment in a training platform based on a dissatisfaction rate of only 15% of certified brokers.

In addition, Ms. Desforges notes that the training offered by CHAD accounts for 3% of the market and that its new "folio package" complements the training activities offered by other providers. The RCCAQ would like to make two points:

1) By forcing the entire brokerage industry to complete two professional development units (PDUs) in the area of compliance, i.e. by taking a course delivered exclusively by CHAD, CHAD is actually taking up 10% of the professional development hours, not 3%.

2) CHAD's training courses are already offered by other industry organizations. Witness the fact that it uses activities delivered by trainers attached to the IADQ [Quebec damage insurance institute]!

Adapting to the "real" reality

CHAD claims to offer “professional development activities adapted to reality”. It is unfortunate to note, however, that CHAD could have brought multiple industry stakeholders together; in our view, what has occurred is precisely the opposite. The RCCAQ would like CHAD to truly adapt itself to the reality of regulated brokers; CHAD could start by no longer attempting to dictate its desires (using justifications and statistics whose meaning is twisted to suit its purpose) and by focusing on its primary mission: protecting the public.