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.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Yes. I wasn't finished my statement, though.
I don't see anything new here compared to what we saw at the last meeting. I just wondered if Mr. Lessard is satisfied with the level of detail in this report.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
We'll go around the room with questions.
We'll go to Mr. Savage.
December 10th, 2009 / 4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Bédard, for coming and for coming a couple of weeks ago when you flew standby. Today you had a guaranteed ticket. Thank you for coming back. I appreciate that.
I certainly don't agree with Mr. Lobb. There's a whole bunch of information in this, certainly, that wasn't made available to us when we had a look at this bill.
I've raised questions about the premium setting. I've raised a lot of questions about the deficit that will be on this fund, which we weren't given initially and were only given in response to our questions. Madame Folco has talked about the premium rates. My colleague Ms. Minna has spoken about the gender inequities, potentially, in this bill and how it relates to regular EI.
You've given us a lot of information. When I saw this this morning, I thought there was a lot of stuff here that would be of interest. If you were still the chief actuary of the EI Commission, if there were still the EI Commission as it was and you were still the chief actuary, would you sanction Bill C-56?
4:15 p.m.
Consultant, As an Individual
If I were still chief actuary, it would not be my responsibility to sanction. A bureaucrat offers advice and then stands back and lets the political leaders reach whatever decision they will.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
That's fair enough.
Would you, as chief actuary, have raised these questions and insisted that these would make the bill an ineffective bill?
4:15 p.m.
Consultant, As an Individual
I certainly would have raised these questions in the same way as I am raising them before you, but I would have stood quiet afterwards.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
There are a number of things of interest here. You've raised a huge number of questions. I'd like to ask you if you are able to tell us, in order, what the biggest flaws in the bill are.
4:15 p.m.
Consultant, As an Individual
Well, the biggest flaw, from the financing side, is that premiums are not aligned to the costs of the benefits. They are, in a way, but only artificially so. They're aligned to the general premium rate, and the general premium rate, everyone knows, basically varies according to unemployment rates. It doesn't vary according to the costs of these special benefits. And it will be increasing over the next few years. For Quebec in particular, it's obvious that the general premium rate that is already in place is already more than sufficient, so why should that particular rate have to go up?
That's my main concern.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
You see, when the minister appeared and when officials appeared, we asked about this. We asked who had looked at this bill. The minister continually said that because it's an optional program, they don't know what the costs are going to be, etc. We understand that, but whenever you introduce a program, there's a certain level of rigour that one expects to come with it. We weren't told that it was going to cost anything. We were told it would be self-sustaining. On the other hand, it never made sense that the minister could state with certainty that it would be self-sustaining when she also said that it was optional and they didn't know.
It's a difficult process. We all support, as you do, the idea of employment insurance for the self-employed. The question is whether this bill is the answer. It is being rushed? Was it put together quickly to get it out the door? Those are the things we've had to wrestle with. That's difficult.
Let me ask you this. Now that you're not the chief actuary but have all the knowledge inherent to having been that, do you think it makes sense that the funding should come from the EI fund, as opposed to the consolidated revenue fund?
4:15 p.m.
Consultant, As an Individual
Well, there are a lot of components to the EI Fund, and they're not all self-financing. Benefits for self-employed fishermen are certainly not self-financing; nor are benefits for construction workers. In general, these are all within a pool. I would see logic in having this within the same pool and the people who join could be charged the same premium rate as the people who are already in the pool, are currently being charged, and that would be 0.41% for sickness benefits, and for maternity or paternity, parental benefits, 0.88%, I believe. Table 4 will provide you with that information. Yes, it would be 0.88%, so it would be a combined rate of 1.30%.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Yes. I find it disrespectful of the members opposite. This gentleman has been invited to come and give us information. I think he should be heard.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
On that point, Mr. Chair, I was actually confirming some things with our officials in relation to his testimony.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you very much.
Can you reiterate for me what, in your view, the rates should be for the self-employed in Quebec to opt in just for the sickness and compassionate?
4:20 p.m.
Consultant, As an Individual
There's a policy decision to be taken. Either everyone is included in the general pool, and then the premium rate would be 0.41%, or one wants to make these benefits self-financing, and then the premium rate should be in the order of 0.9%.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Consultant, As an Individual
It should not be 1.36%, nor 1.96%, which will prevail in 2014.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Okay. We suggest to you that the first year the plan provides that those who register between January and March can qualify for benefits from January 1. Does it make sense to have that for every year, as opposed to just for the first year?
4:20 p.m.
Consultant, As an Individual
I would say yes. Why wouldn't there be an enrolment period every year? That's certainly one approach. The 12-month probation period is quite a lengthy one, in any case. Does it always have to be 12 months? I understand that for maternity benefits one may suggest that 12 months is the proper period to prevent what would be called anti-selection. On the other hand, that hearkens back to--I don't know if you remember--what used to be called the “magic 10” rule, under which women had to be in the labour force between the thirtieth and the fiftieth week before the child was born. That was abandoned in the mid-1980s. This sort of reintroduces that measure, but for self-employed workers only.
