I will therefore resume where I left off, when I was saying that we agree with the principle. A difficulty will arise in the minds of those who will want to get a full understanding of the system. It could indeed prove to be a trap for the people of Quebec, especially with regard to the way it will be used and the fact that after benefiting from it, you will be condemned to pay into it for the rest of your days.

I would like to hear your comments in this regard.

4:30 p.m.

Consultant, As an Individual

Michel Bédard

It can be said that an actuary should deal exclusively with numbers, but I am also an expert in insurance plan design and implementation. In the case of an insurance program, you must provide eligibility and access to benefit criteria such that the system will be able to function efficiently.

In this system, requiring people to contribute for life after having drawn a few benefits is to my mind pointless, particularly in the case of sick benefits. As for parental benefits, they become a form of loan that the government grants these people, but then these beneficiaries must pay the money back for the rest of their lives. Furthermore, given that self-employed workers can usually expect to see their income increase as their career progresses and their expertise improves, they will eventually be contributing an amount based on higher earnings than those that the benefits were calculated for.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin, the floor is yours for seven minutes.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Mr. Chair, I don't have any questions, but I do have a couple of comments, if you don't mind.

I'd like to thank you for coming. You've certainly clarified a lot of issues and brought another very reliable perspective on this piece of work. It certainly confirms my sense of why I supported the Bloc with their amendment.

It is a different scenario in Quebec, and this creates a disparity that I think at some point needs to be addressed. It could have been addressed had the government been willing to accept some amendments that would have improved this piece of legislation when we were doing clause-by-clause. But nevertheless, here we are.

We had committed to getting this bill back into the House before the end of the term, and in fact, that's where we are. I think had the government been open to it, it would have been the intelligent thing to do. We have people on this side of the House who I think have a lot of sincere and valuable contributions to make. When they are not accepted, it's unfortunate.

Also, I think the numbers in here confirm the concern that the CLC and CAW brought, which is that the larger employment fund at the end of the day will end up paying for some of this because we haven't made it mandatory. That's unfortunate as well.

I moved an amendment in committee that was ruled out of order, but that would have asked the government to consider.... And maybe if Ed would hear this, I think it's important. I don't know. But I'm offering it in all sincerity and I think it would be helpful if this expert panel, which has been talked about now on a number of occasions, might be brought in as a further amendment by the government. It could be done at third reading in the House, to establish an expert panel so that we could quickly deal with some of the inequities that I think will almost immediately begin to show themselves as we begin to work with this important piece of public policy, which extends a benefit to a group of people who are obviously in need of it.

Those are my comments.

I want to thank the witness for coming.

I also want to thank the chair for providing this opportunity and Mr. Komarnicki and Mr. Savage for having come to this agreement to actually have him come before us today.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

We're going to move over to the Conservatives.

Mr. Komarnicki..

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Thank you for appearing on what I would call the Michael Savage motion or amendment.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Savage/Komarnicki.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

This business of being an actuary is somewhat complicated. A lot of it depends on the assumptions you make. Is that true? If you make a different assumption, you'll get a different outcome.

You're shaking your head.

4:35 p.m.

Consultant, As an Individual

Michel Bédard

Of course.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

You're going to have to say yes or no.

4:35 p.m.

Consultant, As an Individual

Michel Bédard

Yes, of course. It all depends on assumptions.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Yes, assumptions are very important.

Before I get into the actuarial portion, I understand you have some problems with the bill itself. One was the voluntary nature of the system. That's not an actuarial matter; that's a policy matter. Would you agree?

4:35 p.m.

Consultant, As an Individual

Michel Bédard

In respect of the costing, it does have an effect, yes.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Yes, it will have an impact. Whether you commit people for life once they join a program is another policy decision, is it not?

4:35 p.m.

Consultant, As an Individual

Michel Bédard

It is.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Yes, and it'll have an impact on the cost.

Why you have to wait 12 months for coverage is also policy issue.

4:35 p.m.

Consultant, As an Individual

Michel Bédard

Of course it is.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

And it'll affect the actual numbers?