Evidence of meeting #69 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.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
So you're telling me that when you were using the 0.41% or 41¢, you weren't looking at the number of potential users participating in the plan?
4:40 p.m.
Consultant, As an Individual
I was again applying the current level of costs incurred under the EI system.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
What's the ratio currently for participants in the plan compared to those who actually benefit from the plan?
4:40 p.m.
Consultant, As an Individual
Currently under the EI program, it's roughly 4% of insured people who eventually fall ill, if we're talking only sickness here. Under this plan, it's assumed—and there I'm going on the department's assumption—that it's 10% on sickness.
On maternity and parental, under this self-employed plan, essentially everyone who joins will draw benefits, or they will leave relatively quickly. That's what the department is assuming. I have no reason to challenge that assumption.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
So depending again on the assumptions, that will determine what the end result will be in terms of the cost, if you're going to be self-costing it, correct?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
If it's a voluntary system, there are certain things that result from that, because you may have something called self-selection. Did you take that into account in your assumptions?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
What did you take into account? What did you assign for that particular aspect of it?
4:40 p.m.
Consultant, As an Individual
On sickness, I'm using the same assumption as the department, that 10% of people will qualify, which is a bit more than twice the level currently incurred under the EI system.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Was that the same assumption you used when you gave us the figures a week ago?
4:40 p.m.
Consultant, As an Individual
The assumption that I gave you a week ago, again, was on the financing side. It was not on the costing of benefits.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
When you did the costing of benefits side, you came to the place where you said that essentially the extension of the benefits to the self-employed was not altogether far from being self-costing. In other words, it was pretty close to the benefits being equal to the amount collected from the premiums.
4:45 p.m.
Consultant, As an Individual
You've lost me somewhere. The current system, as proposed by the government, produces a deficit in the order of $70 million by year four, by 2014.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
But you were saying, when you just deal with the Quebec participants, it's pretty close to being self-funding. Is that what you just said earlier today?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Then you have to understand that, it being just a bit more than self-funding, you are making a number of assumptions in arriving at that conclusion, and until you actually run the program you won't know for sure, will you?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Okay, that's all the time we have. We're going to move back over to Mr. Savage for five minutes, as we start our second round.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
On a point of clarification, maybe I'm missing something obvious, but in your numbers, Mr. Bédard, you indicate that in 2014 there will be a deficit of $86 million in the plan outside Quebec and a surplus of $18 million, which leads to an overall cost to the EI fund of $68 million. The number that the department is using is $78 million. Is there an explanation for that?
4:45 p.m.
Consultant, As an Individual
It's basically the same result. I don't have access to the department's internal numbers. It could be rounding. They say the average earnings are $25,000, but maybe it's $25,400 or $24,600.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
You used the departmental numbers in calculating your $68 million, though, correct?