Human Resources committee  There again, you fall into the domain of policy decisions. There are two policy decisions that can be reached on this file. Either you want it self-financing, and then it's 0.9%, or you want these people to pay the same premium as everyone else under the EI system is now paying,

Human Resources committee  It may be that the English translation says that. It's a probationary period, if you will. In the legislation as it is now designed, people have to wait 12 months once they sign in, but they do have to pay full premiums, by the way, for the year when they sign in.

Human Resources committee  It's more than that. If someone decides to join into the program in December, say, then they have to pay premiums for the full year during which they join, the full calendar year. Yet they won't qualify until the next December. So they'll effectively have paid premiums for 23 mon

Human Resources committee  If you join in May, then yes, 12 months later your wife would qualify. However, the year in which you join, premiums will be paid for the whole year. You can check that in the legislation.

Human Resources committee  Well, it would be paid for the year--

Human Resources committee  You will pay for the full year during which you join, so back to January 1, even though you joined in May. And then the following--

Human Resources committee  That's a technical matter, of course, but to me it would have seemed fair to have a pro-rating, which would not be a very difficult thing to--

Human Resources committee  That's right. They've gone the self-financing route, and of course their plan is considerably more generous for self-employed. It's 39 weeks of benefits, high benefit rates, and a one-week waiting period.

Human Resources committee  It's fairly healthy. I don't have it with me, but I looked at their last forecast for their disability insurance fund, and it's in fair health.

Human Resources committee  Much better than its unemployment insurance fund, by the way.

Human Resources committee  I'm sure they can do this sort of analysis. I don't know just what they're doing--

Human Resources committee  I've been gone from the department for six years, so I don't know what they're doing right now. But certainly they have all that information and they can massage it in a myriad of ways.

Human Resources committee  Do you mean the same contribution rate?

Human Resources committee  That would be my preference, but there is a political choice to be made here. I am however not involved in the political domain. If we wanted to spread the cost over the entire group, then a rate of 0,41% would be my personal choice. However, I cannot tell you that this would be

Human Resources committee  Yes, to the extent that it would impose a rate of 0.36% and would provide, in the following years, for an increase unrelated to the cost of the benefits in question. There is no logic in that.