Human Resources Committee on Nov. 26th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I have Mr. Komarnicki, Ms. Minna, Mr. Lessard, and Mr. Savage.

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

I'm trying to understand this—maybe I missed the opening remarks on this. We have the chief actuary here, really, to testify, along with some of the people who had to do with the preparation of the material. Am I to understand that Mr. Lessard wants the previous chief actuary to also provide testimony?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Yes, that's correct.

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

It seems to me that if we have the present chief actuary here, then that's part of what we said we would do, and I can't see going back to somebody else who didn't have anything to do with this, or at least is a previous actuary. So it doesn't make good sense to me. I wouldn't be convinced on giving consent just on that basis alone, for sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. Minna.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was just going to say that I understand we need to give notice and all of that, but we are also a committee that's trying to pass a bill in a very short period of time, so we're working together collaboratively to get as much information as we can in a short span of time. If the witness Mr. Lessard wants to bring forward has some information that maybe our current witnesses may not have here, because we didn't ask them to prepare—depending on what they were asked to bring—it would be a collaborative effort. It won't delay us any. I think it would be helpful to have as many witnesses as possible.

We on this side of the table, anyway, have all said we're supportive of the bill, to start with. All we're doing is trying to clarify some issues within it at the moment. I don't see that as obstructionist. I think that would be in the spirit of collaboration and trying to work together. If we were trying to stop or kill the bill and we'd said we didn't support it, then I could understand the concerns, but that isn't the case here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Mr. Lessard and then Mr. Savage.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I want to respond to a question put by Mr. Vellacott. Why did we wait until today? Because we did not have the information at the last meeting. We did not find out whether Mr. Bédard could appear until today. I learned of the note last night. That is the objective reason.

There is something else. People are wondering whether it is out of the ordinary to do this here. I do not think so, Mr. Chair, not in this committee. We have always tried to respect everybody to ensure that we gain the best understanding of issues possible and that we have the best information in order to make decisions regarding bills. We have always enjoyed that kind of flexibility here. Under the circumstances, it is totally relevant because the information that I now have and that needs to be corroborated by a witness is, in my opinion, critical to our vote today.

I do not understand why anyone would not want us to hear that information, especially given the reasons put forward by Ms. Minna. Do we want to expedite the process, to fast-track things? It seems we are being asked to hurry up because it needs to be done quickly. It would be different if I were asking to delay our work. But since I am not and since this does not compromise the outcome of the conclusion of our business today, it would be mean-spirited to prevent us from hearing from this witness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay.

I've got Mr. Savage and Mr. Vellacott.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I have been on committees before where we have allowed people to appear as witnesses without notice. It seems to me that just recently, looking at Bill C-50, the CAW or the CLC came here and asked for permission to bring somebody to the table who made a compelling case on behalf of that bill, which the government supported. So I don't think it's entirely without precedent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, Mr. Savage.

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I would respond to my colleague across the way, my friend Mr. Savage, that in fact it is different because it's actually somebody supporting their own kind of position, bringing it forward in a collaborative way.

I say this as gently as I can to Mr. Lessard, because I know he really works hard on this committee and he means the best, I'm sure, but there wasn't even the collaborative effort before question period or at any point.... We have it slapped on our desks as the meeting is about to start. We've already agreed on a plan of action. I don't know if there was any foresight, but did you just find out a minute before the meeting began? I think not. There could have even been the conciliatory attempt to bring it to people before Question Period, at some point in the morning or afternoon, if that was the time when you found that out.

I want to say, in as gentle a fashion as possible, that I haven't seen this happen before. It's not to say you can't ever do it if it's never been done before, but I just don't see it as forwarding our agenda. We came to a fairly lengthy discussion last time and agreed to do this.

To the chair, I would simply ask you to call the question so we can get on with the agreed plan that we had deliberated at length on at the last meeting, when you weren't here, Mr. Chair, so we can proceed to hear our witnesses and get on with the clause-by-clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay.

Do I have anyone else on the list? Mr. Lobb, did you want to comment?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

My only comment, Mr. Chair, is that the witnesses that we've heard to date are either those directly involved within the government or those who reflect large bodies--the Canadian Labour Congress, the Federation of Independent Business, the CAW, and on and on. This individual may have some pertinent facts, but it remains to be seen who he represents--perhaps himself. I think this is a slippery slope for committees to entertain.

I think that the wishes or the demands from the last meeting were to have Mr. Taillon come before the committee, present his information, have questions asked of him, and be prepared to entertain those questions. I think the committee should stay focused and avoid the temptation to bring witnesses who represent possibly themselves and their own calculations.

No offence to the witness is suggested. I just feel as though that is the slippery slope that committees must resist.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

It is clear that we don't have consent, so I am going to turn it over to Mr. Vermaeten for his comments. We'll get started with the first hour, to discuss any questions we may have.

[Frank Vermaeten]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to comment briefly on the material we provided you. We provided four pieces.

The first piece is some detailed information on how we derived our projections. We're happy to answer any questions on that. I want to comment that we thought this was a significant amount of detail, more than is usually provided for measures that go through the budget process or other EI measures.

The second piece, as requested, was on the explanation of the sharing of compassionate care benefits.

The third piece was on the analysis of gender. This was a fairly lengthy piece, which provides quite a bit of detail on it. I want to apologize for its arriving a little late. That is because it is such a large piece that it took us quite a while to have it translated and all formatted.

The last piece is a clarification of the role of the Office of the Chief Actuary and the chief actuary for the EI commission.

Last time, there was a lot of confusion because we used the term “chief actuary”, and sometimes the committee and witnesses were talking about different people. We have the Office of the Chief Actuary, which works for OSFI, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, and is responsible for the actuarial valuations for CPP, for OAS, and for the Canada student loans program. They are not responsible for the EI program. For that, we have a chief actuary who provides advice. So we brought with us Luc Taillon.

I want to clarify that Luc has two roles. One is that he is the chief actuary for the EI program, and his team provides support for the EI commission in determining the premium rate for any given year. That is only part of his job; it's where he spends roughly one-quarter of his time. Most of his time is spent as a member of the skills employment branch, which I head. There he runs the actuarial and geomatics group, and occasionally he is pulled in to provide support in the development of measures. Such was the case with the self-employment measure.

Usually he is not part of that. When we look at the recent initiatives that HRSDC has developed—the additional five weeks, the Canada transition assistance initiative, the work sharing, the recent increase to 20 weeks for long-tenured workers—he isn't involved. The only reason we involved him this time around was that the measure is quite complex, and we thought it was a prudent practice to have that extra layer of rigour when it came to this assessment. Other than that, the policy was developed in the same way as it always is.

I hope that is helpful. We are pleased to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We will start as we normally do with our rounds of questioning. We will start with seven minutes, and we'll start on the Liberal side.

Mr. Savage, the floor is yours, sir.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for some of this information. Concerning the clarification about the roles of the chief actuary, even the minister seemed to be a little confused when I asked questions about the chief actuary who was involved in this. I'm trying to piece together what you have said.

Mr. Taillon, what actuarial work did you actually carry out in relation to the preparation of this bill?

[Luc Taillon, Chief Actuary, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development]

In short, we looked at the methodology that was used, the assumptions, and the results. It was a very rigorous process. We worked very closely with Louis Beauséjour's group on these projections.

It is not only me. We are a group of three fully qualified actuaries; we are fellows of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries. We all looked at the methodology, the assumptions, and the results, and we felt that they were actuarially reasonable. We helped develop the model and the assumptions, if you wish.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Okay, you helped to develop the model and the assumptions, so you were involved in determining what the uptake would be on this program, what the cost would be, and thereby what the premiums would be, were you?

[Luc Taillon]

We were part of that process, absolutely.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

So do you put some kind of stamp of approval on that? I'm trying to determine your role as somebody in the department versus somebody like a chief actuary who would have a sort of oversight role.

[Frank Vermaeten]

Perhaps I can answer that, because I think that was the point of the initial statement that I made.

He absolutely would not put his stamp of approval as a chief actuary for the account. That's a very specific role, where he has statutory responsibilities. He provided advice, and his team was part of verifying these numbers, in the same way as members of the skills employment group--of which both of these are members--worked together to derive the numbers. So there is no official stamp of approval. He has no more of an official role in these numbers than does Louis Beauséjour.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Taillon, when did you begin your work on this bill?

[Luc Taillon]

It was in the summertime, if I remember well, but I was away at that time, so it was one of my staff who started working on the model and the projections.