Human Resources Committee on Nov. 24th, 2009

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

You are thinking of it as voluntary. Mr. Creber was saying that he wanted everyone to be treated the same. He wants the system to treat people the same. Other works have no choice. They pay and that is the end of it.

Would one solution be for it not to be voluntary? That way, more people would take part.

[Ross Creber]

We certainly are supportive of the opt-in component of this program. We haven't done a lot of study on the mechanics or finances of this program at this point. All of the people who represent our direct-selling companies are independent. They each have the same opportunity to create their own business opportunities, their own income. A lot of it's driven by their desire to do this, their abilities, and the time and energy they put into developing their own business.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I understand that, but you are saying we want them to be treated on the same level playing field, but at the same time it should be voluntary.

[Ross Creber]

I'm having difficulty with the question.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I thought you said in your presentation that you want the people to be able to get it because they want to be treated on the same level playing field as other workers and be able to get employment insurance.

[Ross Creber]

Right.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

But the other is not voluntary for the workers, so they are not on the same level playing field. They have an opportunity to now get on it, which creates this deficit of $78 million.

[Ross Creber]

If somebody chooses not to work or not to opt into this program, there shouldn't be any need for them to pay into the program. They're not being paid just to show up for work; they're not being paid to be part of an organization. When we talk about a level playing field, we believe that some opportunity should be available to these people. But they're not asking for employer contributions on this, because they're self-employed individuals. So is it fair to have them pay double the premium that an employed person would pay?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

You were looking at double the premium, not having everybody pay, all the self-employed. I think in Quebec everybody pays into it, but I'm not sure. The self-employed pay a certain amount. Everybody pays into it and then everybody gets it. I don't know if it's enough.

On the other hand, regarding farmers, for example, what does that do? Of course, after maternity or paternity leave, there is still health insurance.

Mr. Phillips, you said that you did not think that one parent would take the baby to work in the barn or on the farm. That is why the parent would want to stay home or have someone else paid to do it.

When a person is sick, it is more or less the same thing. Don't' you think? The person needs the same help. Farmers would be helped the same way. After you had your family, you could not use that help again. Everyone has to be treated the same way.

[Richard Phillips]

My children are a little older now, but I can remember when we were raising our children on the farm and we had four children under seven years of age. Our friends would be doing things and going places and it was all paid leave. My wife had to take two children to go somewhere, and I had to hold the baby while feeding the pigs. Trying to watch a baby while you're running machinery is quite dangerous, but we didn't have money to hire babysitters. In fact, there wasn't even day care available in our small town.

I think this will provide an important choice. It will provide an opportunity for the families that wish to participate. We see it as a good thing. Some people may not. A lot of farms have larger families, so maybe parents or grandparents can come to help. Some families will use their family to do it rather than belong to the program, but not all families have that choice.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I will tell you...

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

You time is up, I'm sorry.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Oh no.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

You will get another turn.

Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I've been around here for a while, and it is somewhat uncommon to have the opposition parties agreeing that this is a good bill. They may quibble with a few issues. It's good to see Mr. Godin onside.

Coming from Saskatchewan, I like to hear the farming point of view. We have a good number of farmers. When I look at the statistics in agriculture, I see that most of the people in that area are self-employed. This is also true in construction and other areas. The labour force survey shows the number of males and females and how many are self-employed. So it wouldn't take a great deal of effort to figure out the exact cost.

Ms. Pohlmann said that two things were important, at least from her perspective. One was that the system remain voluntary. I take it that is a key component. It's important that it stay voluntary, even if it provides some difficulty in calculating the uptake and the actual cost. Would you agree with that assessment, Ms. Pohlmann?

[Corinne Pohlmann]

Yes, I would agree. I understand the government's intention to choose an employee rate, simply because it was a simple administrative way of doing it.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

In fact, when you did the survey of your members, was there a general assumption that the self-employed would not be paying more than employees are now paying? How did you do that?

[Corinne Pohlmann]

We were only trying to test the concept at the time, rather than getting into details. We didn't ask about the details.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

If you had said you should pay more than the employee now pays, or more than the employer now pays, I sense you would have probably had negative feedback. The idea is to be able to share in these special benefits without having to pay more than others are paying. Wouldn't you agree?

[Corinne Pohlmann]

Because it doesn't include regular EI benefits, it makes sense that they should pay less than the employer and the employee combined. However, I also think it is important that this be self-financed. That is the other important principle.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

You would want to work toward that, but for now you're prepared to allow for some variables, given that you want people to have the opportunity to opt in or out.

[Corinne Pohlmann]

Yes, that's why it's important that it be reviewed at least annually.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

You mentioned that $50 billion went into general revenues during the previous Liberal government, for whatever purpose. We don't know exactly where that went. It went into general revenues. We know that. But the idea behind the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board was that surpluses would not go into general revenues. Generally, the premiums would equal the benefits. Conceptually, you would say this is a good thing for your organization and others.

[Corinne Pohlmann]

Absolutely, and it's something we've been advocating for a long time.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

If you had surpluses, they would eventually reduce premiums. If you had more benefits than you had premiums, you'd have to increase the premiums. It would be self-financing and that's the concept.