Evidence of meeting #59 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Chair, with all due respect for my colleague Mr. Savage, who I hold in high esteem, I don't think his suggestion will resolve anything. Once the decision is made, it cannot be changed. It is the government's prerogative to establish a rule based on a political choice. That's what we have been told. Rules are not based on actuarial decisions, but rather on political decisions.
Mr. Komarnicki says that this isn't serious. Does it not look serious to you, Mr. Chair? Perhaps he should listen a little. The Chief Actuary from 1991 to 2003 reviewed the situation using the actuarial projections of the Chief Actuary on the job in 2010. He concluded that the contribution rate Quebeckers should be paying pursuant to Bill C-56 should be 41¢ in the case of sick leave, instead of $1.36, a rate that would be clearly excessive.
Summing up, Mr. Komarnicki doesn't think this is serious. He is dismissing this matter out of hand. This very same chief actuary who, may I remind you, worked for 32 years as a government advisor, 12 of them as Chief Actuary. This person is saying that each year, the program throughout the rest of Canada will run a deficit of $100 million. Each year, Quebec will record a surplus of $30 million. By 2014, the deficit will have ballooned to $300 million.
Who is going to absorb that deficit? Once again, it will be divided among all Canadians. My colleague will argue that this isn't right, that the situation is unfair, that Quebec will be put through the wringer. Yet, those who will be embracing this program will be workers who, for the most part, have started up their own business and who already have trouble making ends meet. They will probably misunderstand and sign on and ultimately get shafted, although the government maintains that fairness is the goal of this initiative.
If the objective is fairness, then we will put our trust in the actuarial method, as we are proposing here, and get some fair accounting results, not end up with political choices. My colleague prefers political choices and if someone demonstrates that these choices are unfair, he prefers to attack the person who doesn't share his opinion.
What more is there to say? He doesn't think this is a serious matter. We, however, take this matter very seriously.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Can I have all the MPs back in their seats, please, and our witnesses back at the table?
I have Mr. Savage on my list here.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
What bill are we on, Chair?
Okay, it would have been my preference that we'd had an opinion from the Auditor General, but I think if the government will agree that we will have an independent actuary, agreed upon by the opposition parties, come as a witness to this committee sometime within the next three working weeks of this committee to give an independent analysis of this bill, we will support getting this bill through today.
Our reasoning on this is that, yes, the bill will go to the House, but let's keep in mind that people will be paying for this, starting January 1, for a year. It has to go through the Senate. There may be time to make adjustments. If nothing else, we'll get the assurance that either this bill is actuarially sound—that the rates set are actuarially sound—or it's not, and the government will have to make adjustments accordingly.
It may not be a perfect solution, Mr. Chair, but we have made a commitment—although I wasn't keen on it—to move this bill through by tomorrow. We have travel next week. We don't want to be unduly obstreperous to the process, but we want to have some rigour, as we've raised.
So if Mr. Komarnicki will agree to this committee's hearing an independent actuary of the choosing of the opposition parties before Christmas....
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
So just to be sure, we would agree as a committee to have the opposition bring an actuary—maybe even Mr. Lessard's person—before the committee to testify with respect to the actuarial soundness of this bill.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
The actuarial soundness of this bill: rate setting, premium setting, cost estimates—
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
And that would consist of a meeting of one hour?
Liberal
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Okay, but this will not impede the process of passage of the bill. With that, I would agree.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Chair, that amounts to voting against our amendment. We know how things works, we weren't born yesterday. My colleague wasn't born yesterday either. We know very well that once a decision is made here, there is little likelihood that it will be changed later. We are willingly entrusting others with a task that we have refused to take on. I'm amazed at how easily Mr. Komarnicki is willing to accept this, given that he refused to hear from... He says that this could even be his own actuary. It's not our actuary, Mr. Chair. He's an expert. He spoke out because he felt it made no sense. He is not our own actuary. We suggested that he appear as a witness, he was here, but the committee refused to hear him. Now, it has been suggested that we adopt this and then see. Come on, Mr. Chair. This is supposed to be serious business!
We are entrusting someone else with a task that we should be taking on ourselves. We could have devoted a good half-hour to this task. We could have heard from Mr. Bédard and then, we could have done our job quickly and avoided all of these discussions. But we choose to get into a debate because they never want to accept an opposing view. They never want to accept an opposing view before decisions are made. We don't agree with the suggestion that someone can tell us after the fact that we should have come to a different decision.We are, of course, civilized people and we will welcome them and listen to what they have to say, but what will be the point of that, Mr. Chair?
Now is when the work is being done. I'd like someone to explain something to me. I'm not trying to be disagreeable, but we all have a responsibility and I totally respect the individual efforts that are being made. Mr. Savage clearly described the efforts he was making earlier. When the opportunity presents itself to have some light shed on the situation, how can we possibly turn it down, unless perhaps there is some malicious intent involved? We brought him here and there is still time to hear from him. Unfortunately, I'm sure our request will again be denied. He is still here. We have wasted about one hour because we refused to hear from him. I am convinced that once the committee has heard what he has to say, the majority of the members will vote in favour of my amendment. I don't think the Conservatives will support it. It says a lot about costs. We do not agree with bringing in an actuary after the fact. We will listen to what he has to say, because we're polite, but we don't think it will serve any purpose.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
If there's no more discussion on Bloc amendment BQ-1, I'm going to call the vote.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like a recorded division.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 10 agreed to)
(On clause 11)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
On clause 11 we have an amendment, G-2.
Mr. Komarnicki, would you read the amendment into the record?