Thank you, Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming. I think it was a very useful panel.
I want to thank the Canadian Dental Association and ACTRA for their representations on behalf of their members. And I want to thank our friends from organized labour, who have raised a number of very significant questions.
In general, I think we all share the view that we want to see employment insurance accessible to self-employed persons. The problem is that there are so many unanswered questions.
The CAW and the CLC have taken somewhat opposing views, both of which were based on good analysis. The CLC is calling for us to pass the bill and then establish some mechanism to make sure there's accountability for the new expansion of EI. The CAW is saying let's put this on hold, so that's an interesting point of view.
We've all indicated support for this, but getting answers out of the government, which presented this bill without giving us any estimate of costs, has been challenging. It was after persistent questioning last week that we received some information from Frank Vermaeten and Louis Beauséjour from HRSDC.
I want to read this, because I want to get your response. This is what we received, “Understanding that heretofore the minister has indicated that this will be self-financing”:
The financial impact will be different in Quebec, where maternity and parental benefits are already provided through QPIP. In Quebec, where only sickness and compassionate care will be provided through EI, it's projected that premiums collected will fully offset costs. For the rest of Canada, it is projected that premiums levied on the self-employed will not fully cover costs because costs associated with maternity and parental claims would exceed premiums by those primarily interested in maternity and parental benefits. Table three, below, provides projections of the expected accrual financial impact on the EI account. It is expected that projections for 2014 closely resemble the steady-state impacts.
The table indicates that in the first year there will be a surplus of $48 million, which makes sense, as people have to pay in for a year before they can draw a benefit. But by 2014 there will be a $78-million deficit in the account. I think it validates the concern that there is going to be a cost here. Added to that is the fact that this is coming out of the EI fund, not out of consolidated revenue funds, so there is a potential to have an impact on regular EI payers—employers or employees—who don't have a choice, .
I'd like to get the views of CLC and CAW on the information we were provided today.