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.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
When you were here the week before, I gather you had put some figures together that were distributed to our committee. In that projection, you said the premium rate that Quebeckers should pay under Bill C-56 for sickness benefits should be 0.41% or 41¢. You said the other premium would be excessively high. That was based on a premise, an assumption, was it not?
4:35 p.m.
Consultant, As an Individual
That was based on the assumption that there would be a full pooling of risks. I've indicated this number again, yes.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Yes, but that number was given to us on the assumption that the system would be compulsory, was it not?
4:40 p.m.
Consultant, As an Individual
It was given on the basis that these people could pay the same premium as the salaried workers already included in the EI system.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
With respect to the 0.41%, was your assumption that everyone had to partake of the plan or that you could voluntarily opt in? Which assumption did you use?
4:40 p.m.
Consultant, As an Individual
It could be either, really. It seemed fair to me that these people could pay the same premium as people who are already covered for the same benefits. That was the rationale.
I've also indicated that if we wanted the plan to be self-financing, instead of 0.41%, which would be the full pooling, then the premium should be 0.9%. So the—
4:40 p.m.
Consultant, As an Individual
I mean 0.9%. So the policy decision is whether one wants self-financing or full pooling.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Pooling means that everybody contributes to the pool and they cross-subsidize.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
That was never the policy decision here. It was more about having people pay for the benefits. When you took that into consideration, your percentages went from 0.41% to 0.9%. Is that right?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
That's double what you were prepared to say this would cost last week.
4:40 p.m.
Consultant, As an Individual
Yes, it's double—a bit more than double, actually.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
When you were making your projection on the 41¢ or the 0.41%, you were of the view that about one in 30 who participate would eventually receive a benefit if they paid the premium. Is that not correct?
4:40 p.m.
Consultant, As an Individual
No, I've always made the same assumptions as the department—one in 10, 10%, for sickness and for maternity/parental benefits. It would essentially be everyone who joins.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
So when you made the projection of 0.41% or 41¢, you were using the assumption that one in 10 participants would benefit?
4:40 p.m.
Consultant, As an Individual
You're confusing things. The 0.41% would apply if this was a full pooling arrangement, if they were to pay the same premium. The 0.9% applies to sickness, if you want this to be a self-financing system. It has to be 3.40% to pay the totality of benefits outside Quebec.
