Human Resources Committee on Nov. 24th, 2009

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

Do you think that we should create a separate, completely different sub-fund under the existing Employment Insurance program so that we have specific contribution rates for self-employed workers, a balanced rate?

[Andrew Jackson]

As you know, now we have the EI fund and the premium is going to be set by the EI financing board. By the time they get going, they're going to be facing a big deficit in the EI account because of the recession and because the accumulated surplus hasn't been transferred over. They will have to set the premium in the light of the revenues flowing into the program and the cost of benefits.

I guess as this program for the self-employed is included in that, it will be costed by the chief actuary as the program proceeds, and they will have to set the overall premium rate in light of trends in all aspects of the program—regular benefits, special benefits, and benefits for the self-employed.

For a start, we shouldn't be raising premiums over the next few years, given the fact that we had a very large accumulated surplus going into it. The EI financing board or any financing authority should, as in Quebec, set a premium rate for the self-employed that covers the cost of the benefits provided to that group. I think the chief actuary is quite capable of doing that as the program unfolds, but what we don't really know now is just what it's going to cost as it rolls out.

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

You stated, Ms. Ritchie and Ms. Byers—I believe you mentioned it, too, Ms. Downey—, that it was important for this measure to be mandatory.

Can you explain to me a bit more why we would want that? You talked about the example of Quebec, but can you elaborate a bit, Ms. Ritchie in particular?

[Laurell Ritchie]

In general, this goes to the issue of social insurance, and to some extent it differs from commercial insurance. You are pooling this across a broad population, which makes it sustainable. It actually goes, to some extent, to the question you just asked.

Outside of Quebec, I worry about a separate fund for this, because we have heard over the years the position taken by some business organizations and occasionally by some politicians in regard to these benefits, these so-called “social benefits”, though reaffirmed in a recent Supreme Court decision as a proper mandate of the employment insurance system. Set aside, I think it would become more vulnerable to those who would want to take social benefits out of the EI system.

Where we do best, I think, is where we are sharing this responsibility across the broad population, and yes, I'm sure my dentist won't participate and would not want to be paying premiums, but I also know there are other populations within the payroll employees. Some teachers might argue, “I'm never going to be able to qualify, why do I contribute?” The only way that a social insurance system can sustain itself is if everybody is contributing and pools that risk through thick and thin, one occupation to another, from one end of the country to the other—and I do a set-aside for Quebec.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you. I think you've made your point.

Mr. Godin, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome everyone.

I would like to ask you a question, Ms. Downey. As far as Employment Insurance is concerned, what is your opinion not only on parental and maternity leave, but also sick leave or leave to take care of a person who is sick?

Unless I am mistaken, you said that people should be able to receive Employment Insurance benefits even if they did not have a job. I don't know if you heard the earlier witnesses tell us that they have no idea how a person could lay himself off. In that case, could you explain how that could work, in your opinion?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Who is the question for, Mr. Godin?

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

For Ms. Downey.

[Ferne Downey]

Thank you.

As actors know, we can't exactly fire ourselves. My members tell me stories all the time about the financial stresses they suffer as a result of not having any access, ever, to any of these social programs. I just came back from Vancouver on the red-eye last night, and the stuntwomen out there in particular were very articulate about their lack of protection in their workplace.

I don't know if that answers your question.

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

My question was more about how you deal with it, because the program is only for sick leave, maternity and parental leave, and care, but some people are saying it should go all the way if a person doesn't have work. How would you work in your industry?

[Ferne Downey]

Stephen, you're going to have to help me on that, because we're a very different kettle of fish.

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

Where's the fish?

[Stephen Waddell]

Well, there are some similarities with fishers and actors, they say.

By their nature, engagements in film, TV, recorded media jurisdiction, stage, and so on are infrequent. It's just the nature of the business. We don't call it employment; we're very careful to say it's not an employment situation, because of the tax implications. The average ACTRA member earns $15,000 a year. No one could live on $15,000 a year or from these kinds of earnings. By and large, engagements are very infrequent: there's a commercial here and there, a day here and there. The only time you get some longer-term engagement is if you're working at Stratford or you've got a series and you're a series regular.

Our members have never had the opportunity to participate in an EI program. As we said in our speaking notes, the government is taking a good first step, but we'd like to see more, not the least of which is, as we said, that mandatory participation would be terrific, and having the producers contribute would also be an excellent addition to the program.

In terms of EI itself--regular EI, which is what you're getting at--it's not going to fit. There's not a clean fit with the nature of engagements in our jurisdictions, but that's why we're recommending that--

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

The reason I raise the question is that some artists are coming to me and saying that when they get on the show and they're doing the show, they get paid, but when they prepare, they don't get paid.

[Ferne Downey]

When you audition, you don't get paid.

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

We all love our artists. We love them on Friday night and Saturday night, entertaining us and all of that. They just don't get paid for what they're producing.

[Stephen Waddell]

Yes, but that doesn't mean you're not working, right? You're preparing. That's exactly it.

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

Exactly. That's what they're saying: it doesn't mean they're not working, but they're not getting paid.

[Stephen Waddell]

You're working out with your colleagues.

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

But then you're saying it will be hard to find a way to pay in between.

[Stephen Waddell]

Yes. It would be difficult, because there is virtually no employment between the actual engagements, but let's find another way of doing this. Let's look at a different form of eligibility.

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

I saw in your presentation that you're saying there should be a review, and not five years from now. There should be a review to assess where it is. There should be expert panels, as was promised in the budget, but we never got them.

We cannot blame the Liberals on that one. I know Mr. Komarnicki is saying that everything is the Liberals' fault, but I remember when they passed the bill about $2 billion going to the fund, and it was under the Conservatives that it happened. I said the one that legalized the taking of the money was not too long ago.

When we look at this one, you're saying you support it, but it has to be reviewed and some changes have to be made. What changes, then?

[Barbara Byers]

I feel sometimes in this room...it's a little bit like the last discussions we had when we came to talk about the previous bill's extension of benefits. There are some people who are going to benefit from this kind of a move, and we obviously don't want to stand in the way of that. But there are some big problems and some big questions, the whole question about financial sustainability and who will really benefit. Will it be that self-employed woman who may be an ACTRA member, or someone else, or will it be people with a much higher income who will get the benefits from this?

There are all sorts of questions. People have said to me that they understand on the parental benefits. You know, somebody would be able to say they were planning to get pregnant next year so they'd start paying into benefits now so that when the time comes to take maternity and parental benefits, they'd be eligible. But the question that was asked of me was: How do you plan for sickness? I don't have an answer for them on that. I don't think you have an answer for them on that.

I think there are some people who think they're going to have access to sick benefits that, quite frankly, aren't going to be there, because they're going to have to have paid in. And if it's voluntary, they're not going to have paid in by that time. That's why we think there needs to be a much more rigorous review of what's going on, how the money's being spent and who's benefiting.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you.

Mr. Vellacott.

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

I have some questions, first to Stephen and to Ferne.

I take it you've had some discussions with your members, different artists and so on. Would it be correct to say they would like it to be voluntary? Did they have any thoughts or comments on that? I would assume that's the case, but I'm not sure.