Bill C-56 (Historical)

Fairness for the Self-Employed Act

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act and other Acts by establishing a scheme to provide for the payment of special benefits to self-employed persons who are not currently entitled to receive them.

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

Mr. Chair, there is a major reason why we did not have 48 hours. First of all, I did not learn about the information that I received from Mr. Bédard until last night. It was not until today that we could check to see if he could appear before the committee at today's meeting.

Furthermore, Mr. Bédard learned of our proceedings. He is not here to make the officials who are here look bad. That has never been his style. He is here to provide additional information that he considers relevant, given his experience and expertise, as well as his knowledge of the current situation and the issues related to Bill C-56. That is why it is important to hear from him. It would be unfortunate for the committee not to benefit from such a knowledgeable resource and informed opinion.

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

Mr. Chair, before we begin, the clerk received a notice of motion from us. A little while ago, in the House of Commons, I brought up the fact that we had received new information that could be very useful to the committee. The information comes to us from the former chief actuary. We submitted a notice of motion to the clerk that reads as follows:

That the study of the clause by clause of Bill C-56 be postponed in order to hear the previous chief actuary to the employment insurance commission, Michel Bédard.

Immediately after hearing from our friends here today at the committee meeting, we hope to hear from Mr. Bédard, which would not delay our proceedings very much. Right after that, we could continue with our clause-by-clause study of the bill. That is my proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to order of reference of Thursday, November 5, 2009, Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, we'll now get started.

Before we get started, there's a budget before you. It's a supplementary travel request that needs to go before the Liaison Committee tomorrow morning to be approved. It's for additional witnesses and equipment that was omitted on the first budget. I'm sure there are probably not a whole lot of questions regarding that. I'll call the question on the budget.

All in favour of the $21,580 request for additional funds from the Liaison Committee.

(Motion agreed to)

We have the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development before us today. We have Frank Vermaeten, Louis Beauséjour, and Luc Taillon. Thank you for being here.

I understand you don't have a statement, but you have a few comments to make before we get started.

Oral Questions

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to table a document received by the member for Chambly—Borduas, to which he referred during question period.

The document is from Michel Bédard, former chief employment insurance actuary from 1991 to 2003, who conducted his own analysis of the contribution rates set out in Bill C-56. He shows that the contribution rates are far too high given the coverage proposed in the bill.

I would like to table this document in both official languages.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the House leader for the official opposition, for his question.

This Thursday I will contain myself mainly to the traditional question which is the business ahead for the next week for the House of Commons.

This week we are focusing yet again on the government's justice bills. Yesterday we completed the final reading of Bill C-36, the serious time for serious crime bill. We expect to send Bill C-58, the child protection bill, to committee later today. I had hoped that debate might have collapsed before question period and that bill would have already been on its way to committee. Hopefully that will happen this afternoon.

We will then be debating at second reading Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. We are hopeful debate will conclude on this bill as well today.

Other bills scheduled for debate this week are Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act, and Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, which is the response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Shoker bill.

Next week we will be calling for debate: Bill C-27, anti-spam, at third reading; Bill C-44, the Canada Post remailers bill, at second reading; Bill C-57, the Canada-Jordan free trade bill, at second reading; Bill C-56, fairness for the self-employed bill, at report stage and third reading; and of course, as always, I will give consideration to any bill that is reported back from committee.

My hon. colleague asked about allotted days. Next Tuesday, it would be my intention to have as the next allotted day.

Employment Insurance

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the former EI chief actuary, Michel Bédard, the contribution rate announced for self-employed workers in Quebec, $1.36 per $100, is far too high. It should be 41¢ to cover the real costs of the new benefits provided for in Bill C-56.

Will the minister admit that the contribution rate for self-employed workers in Quebec is three times the actual costs of the special sickness and compassionate benefits, the only new benefits they can receive under Bill C-56?

Support Measures for Adoptive Parents

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to contribute to the debate on Motion M-386 brought forward by my colleague and friend, the member for Essex. This private member's motion has to do with support for adoptive parents, which is an extremely important issue.

I find it interesting. The motion comes up for the second hour of debate at the same time a motion passed unanimously in the House, which said that we would continue to work toward ending child poverty. I would suggest that there is no more effective way of ending child poverty than having a child become a part of a family, a family that can support and wants to support the child, which is the case when it comes to adoptive parenting.

I really wanted to speak on this issue because I know, as do most people in the House, one couple in particular that has been married 10 years. The couple has tried to have children for 10 years and desperately want children. About five years ago, the couple found out that was not likely to happen. The couple then started the process of trying to adopt a family. It has been an extremely difficult process and it has not been successful so far.

The motion discusses an issue which is extremely important and emotional, not just for that couple but for everyone, I suggest, who thinks about this.

I know the joy of children. My wife, Linda, and I have five grown children.The youngest two are 26. The oldest is 31. We have two sets of twins. I know the joy they have brought us, and continue to bring us. I cannot imagine my life without our children. I know my wife feels the same way. Now there are grandchildren, which is just a lovely, wonderful experience. We are blessed that two of our children have had children. We have three grandchildren, the youngest being a four-month-old granddaughter, Claire, who is just absolutely gorgeous and a delight, as are the two, two-and-a-half-year-old grandchildren.

The joy of children and family is something that most of us understand. It is something that, quite frankly, is more important than anything else I can imagine.

I applaud the member for Essex for seeking to assist families that have been brought together by adoption.

What he has proposed in his motion, specifically, as was mentioned by previous members, is that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be instructed to examine current federal support measures that are available to adoptive parents and their adopted children, recognizing and respecting provincial and territorial jurisdictions in this regard, and following completion of this study, to report back to the House.

What does my friend, the member for Essex hope to get from the study? I really cannot speak on his behalf, but I know what I hope will come from this. I sincerely hope this group, after examining the situation, will come back to the House and recommend that adoptive parents be given the same maternity benefits that are now available to parents of children who are not adopted.

I believe family is the basic building block of our society. Everything starts with the family, as my colleagues who have spoken before me have said. Helping families has been a key priority of our government since 2006, and I want to talk about this a bit.

In all our actions to support family, this government has been guided by the principles of choice and opportunity. We believe Canadian parents can be trusted to be do what is best for their children. Our role is not to dictate their choices, but to give them the resources they need to act on this decision, whatever it may be.

Let me start by putting this issue into context by giving a brief outline of the benefits and plans that now exist for parents, specifically, with reference to the employment insurance special benefit system.

The system provides help to Canadians for periods when they cannot work, such as sickness, caring for loved ones or, in the case of the context here, the birth or adoption of a child. When it comes to the issue at hand, the employment insurance special benefits are intended to support parents in balancing the demands of work and family by providing the flexibility they need to stay at home and care for a newborn or newly adopted child.

I can also happily add that our government has put forward Bill C-56, which would extend all of these special benefits, including maternity and parental benefits, to self-employed Canadians, for the first time, on a voluntary basis, which is an important component. I support this measure. Hard-working Canadians do not have to choose between family and work responsibilities any longer.

Maternity benefits are available in the weeks surrounding childbirth and can start up to eight weeks prior to the expected date of birth. These benefits are available to biological mothers, including a birth mother who places her child for adoption. In effect, the 15 weeks of maternity benefits allow a birth mother to be protected from an earnings loss caused by her physical inability to work or to seek work in the weeks surrounding birth.

Some concerns have been expressed that adoptive parents do not have the same access and number of weeks of benefits as biological parents do, which is 15 weeks of maternity benefits offered exclusively to birth mothers. Who knows, this might come out of a study done by the committee.

However, in 2007 the Federal Court upheld the 15 weeks of maternity benefits when it confirmed that there was a distinction between biological mothers and adoptive parents. Biological mothers endure the physiological burdens of pregnancy and childbirth. It is for those reasons that the 15 weeks are offered. Maternity benefits are provided to replace the lost income for those reasons.

The Federal Court endorsed the constitutionality of that arrangement and the Supreme Court, in 2008, declined to hear an appeal in the case. I believe that is appropriate. It is certainly not up to the courts to make our law. That is the role of Parliament. What we are discussing here is the possibility of changing the law and making new law when it comes to this maternity benefit.

As well, all parents can access 35 weeks of parental benefits for the purpose of remaining at home to take care of and bond with their newly born or adopted child. That is available already. These benefits can be shared by both parents.

To return to adoption itself, in Canada, as many in the House are aware, this is an issue that falls under provincial jurisdiction. However, the federal government has a role. The committee that does a study and any debate that may take place in the House certainly would respect the jurisdiction of the provinces when it comes to these issues.

Our Conservative government introduced and saw pass Bill C-14 two and a half years ago. It grants permanent resident status or Canadian citizenship to internationally adopted children and makes that process much quicker and easier. This measure was widely praised and I think it is an example of a job well done by our government.

In the time remaining, I cannot go through the rest of the things our government has done to help families. In most cases, the things our government has done apply to families whether they have adopted children or not.

Once again, I thank my friend and colleague, the member for Essex, for bringing this motion to the House. I support the motion and I encourage every member in the House to support it. It simply asks for a study to be done to determine what is available and perhaps come up with recommendations on what should be available to parents who choose to adopt children.

[Barbara Byers, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm pleased to be here in front of the committee again on behalf of the 3.2 million members of the Canadian Labour Congress, workers in virtually every occupation in communities all across this country.

The CLC has long supported the provision of special benefits—maternity/parental/adoption benefits, sickness, and compassionate care—through the employment insurance program. Those benefits now make up an important part of the Canadian income security system. Maternity and parental benefits allow working parents, especially women, to better balance the demands of work and family care, helping equalize labour market outcomes between women and men while also contributing in a central way to the well-being of very young children. Sickness benefits provide an important income cushion to cover an involuntary absence from work of up to 15 weeks.

The CLC welcomed a major expansion of maternity and parental benefits in 2001, when parental benefits were increased from 10 to 35 weeks, bringing the total leave period up to one year, counting the two-week waiting period. Given the fact that a significant and rising proportion of all labour force participants, not least women, are self-employed, and that the trend to self-employment may continue, it's important that self-employed workers be given access to many of the same protections and rights provided to employees where this is feasible and appropriate. We believe that it is both fair and feasible to provide access to maternity and parental benefits comparable to those of employees.

We strongly support the principle of extending maternity and parental benefits to self-employed workers, but this must be done in a manner that is consistent with the basic principles of a social insurance program. A basic principle of social insurance is that participation is mandatory, so that costs are pooled across the workforce. The labour movement welcomed the introduction of the Quebec Parental Insurance Plan in 2006 as a progressive step forward that greatly improved access to, and the level of, maternity parental benefits for all Quebec workers, and also extended these benefits to the self-employed. In our view, Bill C-56 falls well short of the Quebec model. It does not improve access to or the level of maternity/parental benefits for employees, and it extends coverage to self-employed workers in a different and inferior way. Under the Quebec plan, all self-employed workers must pay into the program. Coverage is mandatory, as it is for employees, and the premiums paid by the self-employed in Quebec are set in such a way as to cover the full cost of the benefits provided to the self-employed. By contrast, Bill C-56 will allow self-employed workers to choose if they wish to be covered by opting out or in and paying premiums for one year before claiming a benefit. Further, the premium, set to equal the employee premium, will not, and is not, designed to cover the cost of benefits.

Our major concern is that providing special benefits to the self-employed in this way will prove costly, and could well result in a significant increase in premiums for employees and employers to cross-subsidize benefits paid to the self-employed. This could in turn undermine broad support for EI special benefits, especially given that EI premiums are likely to rise very rapidly after 2010.

Having said all this, we recommend that Bill C-56 be passed, but that the government immediately appoint the panel of experts promised in the 2009 budget. The panel should be mandated to design a program of maternity/parental benefits for self-employed workers based on social insurance principles, with close reference to the successful example of the Quebec plan. With reference to the broad issue of providing special benefits to the self-employed, we have noted on many occasions that many supposedly self-employed workers are, in legal reality, employees who deserve the protections of employee status, including EI coverage. As noted, the Quebec plan not only extended coverage to the self-employed, it also improved maternity/parental benefits for employees. The CLC supports lowering the entrance requirement from 600 to—guess what—360 hours, and benefits should be paid out on the basis of 60% of insured earnings over the best previous 12 weeks.

Changes also need to be made to the program to ensure that the receipt of maternity and parental benefits does not reduce or eliminate regular El benefit entitlements, as happens now if a layoff occurs after a return from parental leave, and vice versa, when a worker is laid off prior to parental leave.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[Dr. Don Friedlander]

Absolutely. I'll give you my card afterwards.

With me is Andrew Jones, our director of public affairs from our office, also here in Ottawa.

The Canadian Dental Association is the national voice for dentistry, dedicated to the advancement and leadership of a unified profession and to the promotion of optimal health, an essential component of general health. That's a mouthful, but what it really means is that our association is focused on building a stronger profession, nurturing a more collaborative dental community, and supporting a healthier public. We accomplish these three priorities through knowledge and advocacy, and it's primarily our work on advocating for a strong profession and supporting a healthier public that brings us before you this afternoon.

The CDA supports Bill C-56 and encourages this committee and the Parliament of Canada to pass it as expeditiously as possible. We have two key reasons for supporting this legislation. First, establishing maternity and family leave benefits for self-employed Canadians has been an advocacy issue of ours for a number of years. We have included it as a recommendation in our submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance's pre-budget consultations, and we've raised it during our regular meetings with policy- and decision-makers here on Parliament Hill.

It might surprise you that we would be a vocal advocate and supporter of extending maternity, parental, sickness, and compassionate care benefits to self-employed Canadians, including dentists. The reality is that the dental workforce and private practice environment is changing. We believe these proposed measures will make our profession more desirable to a greater number of young people who might consider dentistry as a career.

For example, we believe this act will allow a greater number of younger dentists to alter their practice style by making it easier to balance practice and family. Therefore, they can stay more involved in practice during their years of childbirth and raising young children. One of the workforce changes is that many of our new members are coming to the profession with a much different perspective and different needs from those who have come before. Our dental schools are graduating a majority now of female students--58% in 2008--and we believe it's important to allow our new dentists, whether male or female, who are bringing a fresh perspective on work and life balance to the practice of dentistry, to have the opportunity to participate in this program.

In addition, while our profession thankfully does not have provider shortage challenges like our medical colleagues, this is an issue we're watching closely. We're receiving signals that it's becoming more and more difficult to attract new dentists to practice settings in rural and remote areas in Canada. So, again, having the option to join this program may be a positive factor that allows younger dentists to locate to rural areas, alter their practice style from what we would refer to as a full-time traditional model, but still service the area with high-quality dental care that Canadian dentists provide and our patients have come to expect.

Our second key reason for supporting this legislation is its voluntary nature. We believe that the majority of current established dentists will actually not join the program, and if it were compulsory many of them would see the premiums as an unfair and unnecessary tax on their practice that will lead to no individual benefit and simply increase the cost of providing services. We're confident that we would then be sitting before you today asking that the legislation be amended to apply it in a voluntary manner. So we support the fact that it is voluntary.

In closing, Mr. Jones and I thank you for the opportunity to bring the voice of Canada's dentists to your deliberations in support of Bill C-56, and we look forward in a few minutes to responding to any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[Dr. Don Friedlander, President , Canadian Dental Association]

Madam Chair and committee members, good afternoon and thank you for inviting us to participate in your study of Bill C-56, the Faimess for the Self-Employed Act.

l'm Don Friedlander, and I'm president of the Canadian Dental Association. l'm a general dentist who happens to practise a mere few blocks away from where we are in the West Block.

[Laurell Ritchie, National Representative, Canadian Auto Workers Union]

I'm here on behalf of the Canadian Auto Workers and our president, Ken Lewenza. We thank you for this opportunity. CAW is the largest private sector union in Canada and represents a wide range of workers, not just auto, but hospitality, airlines, retail, stores, aerospace, etc. We come from a wide-ranging membership.

We're glad to see the government has expansion on its mind, and we've certainly always advocated for the kind of Quebec parental insurance program that provides coverage for the self-employed, but we believe significant amendments are needed to C-56 before it is passed into law and that consideration of Bill C-56 should be suspended until the government has appointed, made public, reviewed, and considered the report from a panel of experts, as was promised.

We are collectively the guardians of a program that was born in the depression of the 1930s. It has been a constant struggle for workers to maintain and expand that program. We take that guardianship seriously, and we need to ensure, even as we expand the program, that we are not undermining social insurance principles, that the financial integrity of the EI program is protected, and that it does not undermine or jeopardize the EI program for payroll employees by setting dangerous precedents, such as voluntary participation, or through the underfunding of new benefits so that additional costs end up being shouldered by payroll employees.

We have to ensure that C-56 delivers and provides sustainable benefits for the self-employed. The risk to sustainability certainly increases with the addition of sickness and disability benefits. There are very big questions about what this does to the projected $24.8 billion EI account deficit by 2014, as estimated by the parliamentary budget officer, short of very significant premium increases. We need to make sure this does not encourage employers to create more forced self-employment and even phony and false self-employment, which we see frequently in certain sectors, from call centres to trucking. Finally, for us, we need to ensure that it does not distract us from the much larger task we have in front of us, which is fixing EI.

In summary, we need to preserve the integrity of the EI program and basic social insurance principles, which include mandatory participation. The opt-out provision encourages what in insurance terms is called adverse selection, which I'm sure you've heard about before. Raising the premium will not solve the problem of people self-selecting in who consider themselves likely to collect benefits, because in doing so the raised premium will make this even more unattractive to more people who know they have a low risk of claim.

The proposed lock-in--that is, once registered you need to maintain those premiums--doesn't solve this problem, because we are still not pooling the risk over the entire self-employed population, but only with other payroll employees. The standard method of reducing adverse selection in insurance programs is to make the purchase of the insurance compulsory, as is done in Quebec. Again, we want to reiterate that the Quebec model is, as ACTRA and others have mentioned, the model that people had assumed would be put forward in this bill, but that is not the case.

We want to make sure that we have a good program design. We're not sure that we have a workable program and sustainable benefit provision for the self-employed. We know from experience that badly thought out program design comes with a heavy price. Benefits can be there in theory but not in practice.

Some examples.... The compassionate care benefits are well intentioned but still, many years after, very few people can claim, given the conditions for them. The EI hours system, to go back even farther, was sold similarly on the promise of new coverage for part-time workers, when in actuality it has diminished their entitlements, and some would say it was more of a premium grab. More recently, the long-tenured-worker training program, the SITI, and the EEITI, which extended EI benefits, are not working. HRSD officials have confirmed that as of October there is less than 1% of the funds set aside in the stimulus bill that is being accessed in the province of Ontario. Then finally we have the very poorly and badly designed funding of EI, the changes that were made most recently to a pro-cyclical funding model instead of a counter-cyclical model, so that we are no longer paying in the fat years, if you will, for the lean years. Indeed, we end up lowering premiums in good times, which is going to mean very big premium increases, regardless of what happens with this bill, after 2010.

By all accounts, and having read the blues for this session, the sick benefit and compassionate care benefits were pretty much an afterthought, based on focus groups and surveys where the costs and qualifications of the program don't even seem to have been presented to the participants. Earlier Statistics Canada studies have shown a much smaller interest group when the actual conditions were presented to people.

The last point I want to make here is we have to ensure that the program is no more advantageous--if we can use that word advisedly--than it is for payroll employees. As one example, if you take a look at proposed subsection 152.03(3), it says that earnings will be deducted from EI benefits if the person receives those earnings during a period claiming EI benefits. The test in fact for payroll employees is paid or payable, so a delayed payment is still allocated retroactively. This is an important point when we're talking about the self-employed.

As business commentator Michael Hlinka pointed out on a CBC program, people will make the calculations, people will arrange for bills, certain categories of the self-employed will be in a position to make arrangements with clients to delay bills. Some categories of the self-employed are uniquely in this position, so we find it disturbing that it is the term “received”.

Further on the same point, in proposed subsection 152.18(2), which talks about other earnings during a period when a person is in receipt of EI, it says 25%. In fact, the pilot projects that exist apply now in all areas, so the law says 25% but the pilot projects would provide it at 40%. It says that it applies there to all of the benefits encompassed by this legislation. This contradicts the testimony that the two lead HRSD officials gave--and I'm sorry if I'm mispronouncing their names--Vermaeten and Beauséjour. In the blues again, at 17:15, they stated the rules that apply to payroll employees, i.e., these funds are deducted from both maternity and from sick benefits, though a different formula applies to parental, would be the case here for like treatment.

We have a lot of questions of this kind. This needs to be dealt with before the bill is passed, not after.

[Stephen Waddell, National Executive Director, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists]

On November 3 we were pleased to see the human resources minister, the Honourable Diane Finley, table a bill to extend various EI benefits to self-employed Canadians. If passed, Bill C-56, the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, would extend special EI benefits, including maternity, parental, sickness, and compassionate care benefits to the self-employed. Our members, like millions of other self-employed Canadians, have to date been denied access to these benefits.

Let me be clear. ACTRA believes this is a positive first step by the federal government, but it is simply that, a first step. Although the proposed changes are not as robust as the benefits currently available to Canadians eligible for EI, ACTRA is calling on all parties to support the extension of special EI benefits to self-employed Canadians. We also urge MPs from all parties to take other suggestions we'll present here today into consideration to ensure that all Canadian artists are able to fully contribute to and benefit from the Canadian economy.

According to the new legislation, self-employed Canadians who opt into the EI program would be eligible to receive the same special benefits currently available to salaried employees, but there are differences in eligibility that deserve further consideration. Under Bill C-56, access to these special EI benefits will be voluntary. Participants must have earned at least $6,000 in self-employed earnings and must opt in for one year before making a claim. This differs from the current EI program, which provides benefits if claimants meet the equivalent of 17 weeks of full-time work, or 600 hours.

Furthermore, the cost of these special benefits will be borne by the participants themselves rather than a joint employer-employee contribution, as is the case with the regular EI program. To ensure the viability and strength of the plan in the future for self-employed workers, we believe producers should also contribute. Other models exist in Canada that demonstrate how to provide these benefits to self-employed workers in an equitable manner. The Quebec government has already set up the parental insurance plan, which provides maternity and parental benefits for self-employed new parents in that province. The Quebec program differs from the federal EI program in that benefits are higher, maximum insurable earnings are higher, there is no waiting period, and participation is mandatory.

We urge the committee to further study the Quebec model to garner ideas about how both self-employed and salaried workers can obtain stronger benefits. We also urge the committee to further help Canadian artists balance career and family life by extending regular EI benefits to self-employed Canadians, regular EI benefits or payments received when a worker loses his or her job. We recommend that once Bill C-56 is passed, a panel of experts should be established to study how to improve both the special benefits afforded by the legislation and move toward self-employed Canadians' eligibility for regular EI benefits.

[Corinne Pohlmann]

You mean under Bill C-56?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I, too, want to welcome you and thank you for your input into this study of Bill C-56.

I see that all of your organizations are in favour of Bill C-56. Parliamentarians are also in favour, as you have seen. But it is important to determine whether the scope of this bill and funding for the bill are adequate.

My first question pertains to full Employment Insurance coverage. First of all, you looked at the possibility of benefits being paid where, for example, you are out of work, whether it is on a farm or as a self-employed person, in any respect. Would have wanted the bill to also cover benefits in cases of financial problems?

[Ross Creber]

I'm sorry.

Madam Chairperson and honourable members, on behalf of the Direct Sellers Association, I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on Bill C-56, the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act.

I have with me today Lynda Rose, vice-president of sales and marketing for Mary Kay Cosmetics, and immediate past chairman of the Canadian Direct Sellers Association.

Since 1954, the Direct Sellers Association of Canada has established and upheld rigorous standards, ethics, and good business practices as the recognized voice of our industry. As an industry that connects more than 1.3 million Canadians to entrepreneurial opportunity and enrichment, we provide an assurance of member integrity and a foundation of trust for independent sales contractors and consumers.

Our 45 member companies, which include such well-known names as Amway, Mary Kay, Avon, and Tupperware, and their independent sales contractors market and distribute a wide range of products and services directly to consumers, usually but not exclusively in the consumer's home rather than in traditional retail establishments. Generally, these products and services are sold in the context of group presentations known as the party plan, or on a personal consultation basis. I know that some of you joined us last week at a parliamentary reception where many of our companies showcased their products and services.

Direct selling contributes significantly to the Canadian economy. Our labour pool includes some 3,900 permanent employees and, importantly for today's deliberations, over one million independent sales contractors who earned an estimated $1.1 billion in income. In a socio-economic impact study conducted by Ernst and Young, the industry's total impact on the Canadian economy, when using an income multiplier, was in excess of $1.56 billion.

The direct-selling industry is also a vital part of the small business sector in Canada, investing in entrepreneurial and human capital. Our industry has a tremendous capacity to create jobs and to promote entrepreneurial activity amongst Canadians.

We provide accessible business opportunities, with little or no investment, that are open to all Canadians, without any restrictions with respect to gender, age, education, knowledge, or previous experience. The socio-economic study I mentioned earlier also found that that 21% of direct sellers are high-school graduates, 49% have some college or university education, and 27% are college or university graduates.

People enter direct selling for a variety of reasons, including unemployment. The same study found that 11% of direct sellers were unemployed prior to entering the industry.

We are an industry where females play a major role, with 88% of direct sellers being women. Additionally, 81% are married, and 56% worked full-time and 15% worked part-time prior to entering the industry, with 12% representing more than one direct-selling company.

These are some of the reasons why the benefits that would be made available under Bill C-56 are important to us.

The capacity of our industry to create opportunities for self-employment has brought us to recent discussions with HRSDC. We are working with the minister and her department to ensure that these opportunities are available to all and especially to those on regular employment insurance benefits who are considering self-employment.

That is why we are so pleased to be here today to support Bill C-56. Any action to level the playing field between the employed and the self-employed is something we fully support.

It is premature for me to speculate on the potential level of participation we could expect, but we certainly anticipate that this would be appealing to our independent sales contractors should this bill become law. For those who do participate, it is because they will have made a determination that is right for them and for their circumstances. Having that choice available is critical.

Canadians who are self-employed, or those who are considering self-employment, will no longer have to accept that theirs is a lesser option. They can make the choice knowing there is support available for them, as there is for the traditionally employed. This can only be a positive step forward for the self-employed.

We applaud the minister for this measure and we applaud members from all parties who pledge to pass this bill without undue delay.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson.