44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 30, 2022 02:00PM
- Mar/30/22 5:51:41 p.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
The hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha is rising on a point of order.
47 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 5:52:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify something. Last week in the House, I referred to myself as a single mother of six children. I would like to clarify that statement. What I should have said is that I have been a single mother and I now care for up to six children at a time.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 5:52:28 p.m.
- Watch
That is noted.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 5:52:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you might find unanimous consent to call it six o'clock at this time so that we can begin private members' hour.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 5:52:38 p.m.
- Watch
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-215, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to debate my private member's bill, namely Bill C‑215, which seeks to amend the number of weeks for employment insurance sickness benefits.
The bill proposes to increase from 15 to 52 weeks the period for which Canadians eligible for employment insurance sickness benefits are able to use extra weeks for their recovery or their convalescence with a minimum amount of financial security in case of serious illness, such as cancer and other illnesses that require long recovery periods.
This is not a new debate in the House. Every party has introduced similar bills over the past few Parliaments, which implies a certain unanimity among members. Since the devil is in the details, even with positive support in the House, we absolutely need the support of the Liberal government to obtain royal recommendation, since there is a financial implication to Bill C‑215.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer did a study in 2019 and March 2022 proving that this bill is affordable and the cost shared by Canadians and Canadian employers is reasonable. The study indicates that 151,000 Canadians a year need more than 15 weeks of sickness benefits for their convalescence. Should those 151,000 Canadians use all of their weeks, which would obviously not be the case, the cost would amount to $1.6 billion a year on average for the next five years. This cost could be lower than forecast because the average number of weeks required is approximately 38, according to the PBO costing note updated on March 29, 2022.
This debate is truly important for Canadians. Families in my riding have been calling on me for a long time to improve this situation. The lived experiences of Canadians across the country and what I have personally gone through with people very close and dear to me remind me of the harsh reality of the hard times and difficult challenges we have faced with sick family members, who were unable to take care of themselves or even work to pay their bills.
All too often, Canadians with long-term health issues find it very hard to make ends meet and to cover the additional costs resulting from their prolonged illness. These people enjoy an active social life and do not deserve to be left on their own or to lose their dignity.
All of us in the House have a duty to support those who are not covered by income protection insurance, a type of private insurance that is too costly for low-income earners. That is why Bill C‑215 is so important for Canadians. Its low cost affords some basic financial security in the event of a prolonged illness. We are talking about less than the cost of one coffee a month.
Solidarity and compassion are important to me, and I am hoping I can rally the support of all my colleagues here in the House because solidarity and compassion are important to them too. I have faith that, together, we can support the individuals and families who are affected every year when a loved one is diagnosed with a serious or even life-threatening illness. Once again, we have a collective responsibility to do something.
We cannot let life partners, parents, children and grandchildren think that, in Canada, we do not take care of each other and we do not support those who are suffering. Some stories are easier than others, but if we pass Bill C‑215, we can give Canadians some mental and financial peace of mind.
As members know, everyone here who is in good health is unbelievably lucky, and this good health is too often taken for granted. For many, cancer is life experience, but others are not lucky enough to recover quickly, especially if they have many other concerns on their plate. The medical aspect is just one part of living with cancer. Then there is life after treatment, which is a period of transition and adjustment that often brings much bigger challenges than the patient was originally expecting.
Given the scope of the challenge facing Canadians and the tremendous resilience they will show, we must absolutely support them through this experience, which involves precarious periods of great uncertainty.
Many people have to rethink every aspect of their lives, and that takes a lot of courage. Unless I am mistaken, Canadians can count on the opposition parties' firm commitment to supporting them now and on today's debate persuading the Liberal government to give them what they deserve, which is the right conditions for recovery while they await better financial support.
Here in Canada, we are lucky to have a health care system that delivers hospital care to sick people for free. However, there can be many out-of-pocket and unforeseen expenses. Travel to the treatment site is one example, along with parking, child care, nutritional supplements, vitamins and prescription drugs, as well as any equipment needed for recovery.
Employment insurance sickness benefits provide up to 15 weeks of financial support to individuals who cannot work for medical reasons. That means 55% of a person's pay up to $595 per week. To be eligible, individuals must obtain a medical certificate indicating that they cannot work for medical reasons. Medical reasons may include sickness, injury, quarantine or any other condition preventing them from working.
Insurable earnings include most types of employment income, such as wages, tips, bonuses and commissions. The Canada Revenue Agency determines what constitutes insurable earnings.
Some employers provide their own paid sick leave or short-term disability insurance plans. Before applying for employment insurance sickness benefits, individuals must check to see if their employer has a plan. If a medical condition is likely to be long-term or permanent, individuals may be eligible for other benefits, such as the Canada pension plan disability benefit or the Quebec pension plan disability benefit.
I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a very important report on EI sickness benefit policies that was produced following a multi-stakeholder policy round table held on September 4, 2019. This 2019 round table brought together seven different stakeholders interested in Canada's sickness and disability benefit policies.
This initiative was organized by the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Labour Congress, Cystic Fibrosis Canada, Diabetes Canada, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada and Neurological Health Charities Canada.
The discussions followed an initial conversation at a similar forum in 2015, which provided an update on the state of health benefits in Canada. One notable difference between the 2019 round table and the 2015 forum is that the 2015 discussion took a more holistic view of the supports offered, whereas the 2019 session focused primarily on recommendations for health insurance benefits.
The report found that in any given year, six per cent of Canadian workers will suffer a personal health issue that will require them to adjust their work status, including being away from work for an extended period of time, changing from full-to-part time work, and leaving the labour market entirely; and pointed to the need for a comprehensive re-examination of the needs of working Canadians who are living with an illness or a disability. In particular, two conclusions were focused upon:
1. The call for improved coordination within government and between levels of government, including greater coordination of research;
2. The call to increase basic access to support coverage.
I would also like to draw my colleagues' attention to a very important point that was raised during the debate on former Bill C‑265. During that debate, a member said that there were many inconsistencies in program administration, the most obvious being that a caregiver is entitled to 26 weeks of benefits while a sick person is entitled to only 15 weeks.
Some might balk at the idea of providing 52 weeks, that it may be too much. I would just point out that no one has ever gotten rich from being sick, and especially not with 55% of their salary in the short and medium terms. When you battle cancer with a loved one, as I have, 15 or 26 weeks are not nearly enough. I do not need an expert to confirm that.
Some people have expressed concern over potential abuse or fraud by program recipients. As hon. members know, anything is possible. Still, to be eligible for employment insurance sickness benefits Canadians must fill out an application and provide a medical certificate from their doctor or health specialist.
I would therefore like to reassure these people by proposing certain initiatives. After second reading, during study of the bill in committee, we could rely on experts and health specialists to identify all the serious illnesses that are eligible for this extension of benefits to 52 weeks.
We could bring in employment insurance officials to explain the audits that are carefully done every year for the EI monitoring and assessment report.
To conclude, I will reiterate all the positive points of my Bill C-215. All parties and experts in the field agree that we must increase the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50. This bill proposes to extend benefits to 52 weeks.
It is our duty as legislators to ensure that we have an adequate safety net for the most vulnerable. This measure affects 55% of the population, namely those who do not have group insurance and work primarily in the goods and services sector.
The EI program has rigorous monitoring and annual audit mechanisms to prevent mistakes, fraud and abuse. The medical certificate attests to the number of weeks required for the recovery of an applicant through the healing process.
This is a promise that was made by the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2021 election campaign. It is a measure that was voted on by members of our party and presented in the Conservative Party of Canada platform.
Employees who have a private health plan must use up their weeks of sick leave before applying for EI sickness benefits.
This measure is affordable and reasonable when we consider the cost to small and medium-sized businesses of private insurance plans offering the same benefits.
In July 2022, the Liberal government will extend the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits to 26, which means that the PBO's cost estimate will decrease considerably.
I hope to get the support of all my colleagues in the House for this noble cause, which will make it possible for those we love to take care of themselves and have the time they need to fully recover.
1823 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would note that this particular bill that has come forward is almost identical in form to Bill C-265, from the 43rd Parliament. The reason why I bring this up is because, after Bill C-265 went through all the stages of the House and returned back here, the Speaker ruled on the third reading of the vote that it could not proceed because the bill did not have the required royal recommendation.
I am wondering this. Can the member provide some input as to whether the discrepancies or the challenges within the bill, which require that royal recommendation, have been properly dealt with? At my first glance, it does not appear as though that is the case. Unfortunately, it appears that the bill will, in all likelihood, end up with the same fate as that previous bill.
Can the member let us know?
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right.
To obtain royal recommendation, I need the support of the Liberal government or two ministers in the House. It is true that other opposition parties have previously introduced similar bills. This bill is very good for Canadians.
You have the pressure of deciding whether to support this bill or not. It is up to the Liberal government to say yes or no, and you will live with the consequences of your decision.
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 6:08:29 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I remind the hon. member that he must address his comments through the Chair.
The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my Conservative colleague for introducing this bill. The bill comes after we have been fighting for 10 years to increase EI sickness benefits to 50 weeks from the 15 weeks that have been provided for the past 50 years.
My colleague was asked by the party opposite whether this bill required a royal recommendation.
Does he think that what is really required here is for the government to show some political will in moving this forward?
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She is absolutely right.
I think every member of Parliament is in favour of this bill. All the parties have previously introduced similar bills, including the Liberal Party. The current Prime Minister voted in favour of such a bill during a previous Parliament. I think that all members in the House can do some soul-searching and move forward.
It is up to the Liberal government to allow the House to move forward with Bill C‑215. I would go so far as to say it is the wish of the entire House, because this bill will no doubt be supported by the majority.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Conservative colleague and congratulate him on his private member's bill. This is a very good idea, one that the NDP and other parties have already had. It would really help people.
I always like it when the Conservatives, while in opposition, do things that are good for workers.
However, it did take them some time to get to this point. Why did my colleague not introduce a bill like this one when his party was in government?
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
The whole process was 100% democratic. This measure, which we managed to put in the Conservative Party of Canada's platform, came from an association in Quebec. Moving forward with this is now one of our party's national objectives.
I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois and the NDP for supporting my bill because they had similar bills themselves.
I think this is very much the right time to go ahead with this.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what really motivated my colleague to introduce this bill.
In my riding, I have seen so many people end up with absolutely nothing. Even as they were fighting for their lives, they could not cover their basic expenses.
Is that the kind of situation that motivated my colleague?
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that was actually my personal experience for a year.
My wife had cancer, and I had to support her. Without the help of my whole family and our friends, we would have had a very hard time getting through a very hard year.
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. colleague for his story and for his words. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this proposed amendment.
Our employment insurance program is there to support Canadians when they are unable to work or unable to find work. Over the past several decades, governments have amended the EI Act to adapt to Canada's changing employment environment. In that same tradition, the bill we are debating today seeks to change an existing program to address evolving circumstances. However, we need to ensure that any amendments to the EI Act are considered in the full context of the new reality. Please allow me to outline some of the reasons that the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion opposes Bill C-215.
Parliament has already approved an extension of EI sickness benefits from 15 to 26 weeks. We are working hard to implement the extension this summer to better support Canadian workers. In contrast, an extension of EI sickness benefits from 15 to 52 weeks, as proposed in this bill, would incur an estimated incremental cost of over $2 billion per year, which is $1 billion more per year than the extension to 26 weeks. It could impact labour-market attachment and participation by providing additional income support to many workers who are not expected to return to work, and could result in a drop in employer-provided sickness benefit coverage, leading to more claims against the EI program.
Sickness benefits within the EI program are a short-term income replacement for temporary work absences due to illness, injury or a quarantine. When Canadians are facing illness or injury, they deserve to feel confident that the EI program is financially supporting them and protecting their jobs as they recover. Unfortunately, we recognize that some workers use the maximum number of weeks of EI sickness benefits available to them before they are healthy enough to return to work.
A worker who needs more time to recover from an illness should not have the added burden of coping with financial stress, which is why in budget 2021 our government pledged to extend EI sickness benefits from 15 to 26 weeks. The permanent extension of the EI sickness benefits, expected to be in effect by the end of this summer, will provide Canadians with additional time and flexibility to recover and return to work. Other supports are available to workers who may be eligible for longer-term illness and disability, including the Canada pension plan disability benefit, benefits offered through private and employer insurance, and financial supports provided by the provinces and territories.
The current 15 weeks of temporary income support available under EI sickness benefits provide an amount equal to 55% of the worker's average weekly insurable earnings. In 2022, this maximum weekly amount is $638. In 2019-20, on average, workers used approximately 10 weeks of EI sickness benefits. However, just over one-third of workers used the full 15 weeks of sickness benefits available. That told us there was a need to extend the number of weeks available to provide more time to recover for those suffering from longer-term illness. That is why we have committed to increasing the maximum number of weeks from 15 to 26 weeks. We think this strikes a good balance.
The increased number of benefit weeks is a positive change to the EI program, but the government has a much bigger picture developing that must also be addressed. When the COVID pandemic struck, it quickly exposed inadequacies in the EI program. It taught us that EI has not kept up with the way Canadians work, nor has it kept up with emerging trends in labour markets. The gradual and continued emergence of gig workers and self-employed Canadians in recent years is perhaps the best example. The CERB and the Canada recovery benefit helped many of those 2.9 million people keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. It is clear that the EI program was unable to adequately respond to a major crisis like the COVID pandemic, hence the necessity for the government to introduce a series of emergency benefits.
On the positive side, the government is grasping the unique opportunity to bring the employment insurance program into the modern era and to make it more inclusive. Indeed, it is a major component of the mandate letter for the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion.
Last summer, the minister joined the Canada Employment Insurance Commission to launch the first phase of a two-year consultation on the future of the EI program. To reach as many Canadians as possible, the minister asked her department to launch a consultations portal, which included an online survey, where all interested Canadians could share their views. The survey was open from August 6 to November 19 last year and drew more than 1,900 responses. Approximately 60 written submissions came from a cross-section of labour, employer and other groups.
The minister personally attended many of the 10 national and 11 regional round tables to hear feedback on how the EI program could better serve Canadians. Input was received from more than 200 stakeholders across the country, including employer and employee organizations, unions, academics, self-employed and gig worker associations, parent and family associations, and health associations, just to name a few. The overarching goal is to bring forward a vision for a new and modern EI system that is simpler and more responsive to the needs of workers and employers.
The first round of the consultations focused on key priorities relating to improving access to EI, including how to address the temporary emergency measures that will expire this fall. We are also examining whether the EI system meets the evolving and diverse needs of Canadian families, like, for example, how to make maternity and parental benefits more flexible and inclusive for adoptive parents. There are differing views, obviously, but I know the minister has found a unanimous commitment on the part of both employer and employee representatives to develop a modern EI program that is resilient, accessible, adequate and financially sustainable. The government is planning a second phase of round-table consultations by the summer.
Aside from the information, advice and recommendations from the round tables and online consultations, there are several other reviews, evaluations and reports already available. In particular, there was some excellent work in 2021 by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which included 20 recommendations on modernizing the EI program.
In conclusion, the EI program has been a crucial part of Canada’s social safety net since 1940. As I mentioned earlier, EI has become the most complex system within the Government of Canada. Reforming EI for the 21st century is essential, and the government is moving with pace to get it done and, more importantly, get it done well.
1167 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in support of the bill introduced by the member for Lévis—Lotbinière, which seeks to increase the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits to 52 weeks.
I welcome the bill, but I am sorry to see that we are still at this point. We nearly made it to the finish line in the last session. Bill C-265, the Émilie Sansfaçon act, introduced by my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît to increase the number of weeks of sickness benefit from 15 to 50, made it through the committee stage. Sick workers were finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.
Unfortunately, as we know, the bill required a royal recommendation, which was never given. Then we were left with nothing, because an election was called. Only the government knows why it was called. It is a total mystery, like the Caramilk secret.
I would never put it the same as the member for Lévis—Lotbinière did, and I am surprised he did not say it, but after 10 years of struggle and multiple bills, it is a disgrace that we are still at this point.
Nevertheless, I will try to avoid giving a history lesson and instead look to the future, because this bill is fundamentally about hope. It represents the possibility for sick workers to look forward to the future with optimism and with the tools they need to recover in dignity.
Supporting this bill is a matter of consistency and willingness to listen. The weeks of sickness benefits have one purpose: to give insured workers the time to heal while maintaining their employment relationship and to offer them income to support their needs.
To be consistent, these benefits need to be tailored to every type of illness. Some call for more time than others.
During the implementation of the original program of 15 weeks of sickness benefits 50 years ago, 82% of workers had to take more than 16 weeks to recover before returning to work. The program was already flawed because it was demonstrated that recovery took longer than 15 weeks. It seems to me that it would be logical to adjust this measure to make it meet its primary mission, namely to provide the necessary number of weeks of benefits for people to recover from any type of illness.
The government has been talking a lot about science. Science obviously needs to have a role, but what do science and research currently tell us? They tell us that on average, in cases of serious illness, a person needs at least 40 weeks to recover. The current program offers 15 weeks, but this inconsistency is not new. We have to rectify this.
A number of people spoke out against the situation and called for change. People have been saying for years that 15 weeks is not enough. The government needs to listen.
It needs to listen to Émilie Sansfaçon, who dedicated her final years to this cause and who was calling for 50 weeks. The government must listen and it must acknowledge the hard work done by Marie‑Hélène Dubé and the 619,000 signatures she collected in support of increasing the number of weeks of sickness benefits. Ms. Dubé has been advocating for this for 10 years.
Seven bills have already been introduced in the House on the same issue. One such bill was introduced by Denis Coderre and received the support of the current Liberal Prime Minister, who was an opposition member at the time.
Listening also involves being logical. We must acknowledge the many bills that have already been introduced in the House and address this issue.
We have had debates about this, we have had studies, recommendations and committee reports. It is time to stop dithering and get this done. At this point, all we need is the political will.
In its most recent budget, the government decided to increase the number of benefit weeks to 26. That will not happen until July. Recently, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion said that it might even take another three months because the computer systems are not ready. Apparently they are too old to handle these changes.
My question is, why stop at 26 weeks? Why stop halfway when we know that it takes people at least 40 weeks to get better?
The government was supposed to fix things once and for all for workers who contribute to EI, get sick and need protection.
There is private insurance and there is public insurance. These are not the workers we are talking about, because 60% of workers do not have private insurance. They cannot afford private insurance.
I would remind members that a majority of the House of Commons voted in favour of a Bloc Québécois motion to that effect. At least 50 weeks are needed. On June 17, 2021, when the Émilie Sansfaçon bill was being studied in committee, it passed unanimously, without amendment. It was just a matter of will.
The bill also raises a fundamental question. As we figure out how to live in harmony with one another, what values should we base that on? For me, it is fairly obvious. It is about compassion. Workers need to be able to recover from an illness without falling into poverty.
We hear some real horror stories. Some people are forced to use up all of their savings, while others have to remortgage their homes to survive financially. Some manage to get by, because they have enough savings and a good family and support network. Others are forced to fend for themselves. It makes no sense to leave people in such poverty.
From the beginning of this parliamentary session, the government has been trying to convince us that it must intervene in health, trampling on provincial jurisdictions in the process. It now has an opportunity to take meaningful action that will have a real impact on people's health, while remaining within its own areas of jurisdiction. Will the government seize this golden opportunity?
I am appealing to our compassion. We have to allow workers to recover with dignity. It is a matter of justice. Need I remind members that this money belongs to workers and employers? That is how the employment insurance system works. A worker who contributed to the system their entire life and gets sick should be entitled to enough weeks of benefits to recover. It is as simple as that. It is their money after all. It is only fair that they have access to it.
The government justifies its half‑measure by invoking the argument of cost. It says that it is too costly. It would not cost $2 billion, but $1 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that this would cost roughly $1.1 billion more a year.
The government's upcoming budget presents an opportunity. Given that the government is going to spend billions of dollars on issues that are not its own priorities, it must be able to invest $1 billion to correct such a serious injustice toward sick workers.
The member who spoke before me talked about employment insurance reform. There have been calls for such reform for years. The Liberal government promised to reform the system in 2015. It needs to happen now.
There are two opportunities to take action: the budget and employment insurance reform. This needs to happen today, not tomorrow.
1282 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that I rise in the House to say that I agree with the member for Lévis—Lotbinière, but it does happen. I will warn you, however, that I may not make it a habit.
I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for her earlier comments.
I believe that we can perhaps arrive at a consensus, even though it may not be unanimous, on the need to move forward with this bill. Many, if not all, political parties in the House have introduced a similar bill at some point in time. I believe that getting this consensus is the right thing to do to support those who are sick and need help and to ensure that the social safety net is effective and useful.
Many people have been calling for improved special sickness benefits for years. I would obviously be remiss if I failed to mention the labour movement, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, and community groups such as Mouvement Action‑Chômage, Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans‑emploi and the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses du Québec, which are all calling for these improvements to be made.
Like some of the other members who spoke, I, too, want to highlight the efforts of two exceptional women who have fought hard to ensure that these improvements are made to the EI system. One of them continues to carry on the fight. The first of these women is the late Émilie Sansfaçon, who unfortunately did not live to see these changes made to EI sickness benefits, but who worked hard to achieve them. The second is Marie‑Hélène Dubé, who has survived cancer three times and has worked very hard for 10 years with all parliamentarians and political parties to advance this cause. She managed to do something remarkable when she got nearly 620,000 signatures on a petition calling for these improvements to the EI system. That is an amazing feat.
This shows that people are aware of these issues and that they are concerned about them. They recognize that the current system is inadequate and needs to be improved. The Liberals say that they want to listen to the science, but let us listen to what doctors are telling us here. Let us listen to what studies are telling us and look at what people with serious illnesses have to deal with.
Bill C‑215 is very similar to NDP Bill C‑212, which my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona introduced in the previous Parliament. This bill was very much along the same lines as the one before us today.
Fifteen weeks of benefits is completely ridiculous. At one point, caregivers were entitled to more weeks of EI benefits than the person with the illness. The Liberals have taken action, but once again they have not done enough. Rather than increasing sickness benefits to 50 or 52 weeks, they increased them to just 26 weeks.
Why do things halfway, when we are being told that someone with cancer, for example, needs 50 or 52 weeks?
Recovery can take 35 to 40 weeks. The average is 41 weeks. Why not go ahead and make 50 or 52 weeks available? By what logic is the Liberal government telling sick people that they cannot collect benefits while they are sick or that they cannot keep collecting them until they make a full recovery? That is not very humane, it does not meet people's needs, and there is no reason for it at all.
We all agree that 26 weeks is better than 15, but why not go all the way?
I want this to be clear. I am sure we can all agree that sick people themselves do not decide that they need 50 weeks of sickness benefits. That is for doctors to decide. People need a doctor's note to claim special sickness benefits. That strict medical framework is already in place, and it is not up to individuals to choose to take an extra four weeks. That is up to the doctor.
I really encourage the Liberals to do the right thing and support Bill C-215 so we can finally resolve this issue once and for all. This has been dragging on for far too long.
If a royal recommendation or the support of two government ministers is required to move this forward, let us do it. I hope those on the Liberal benches will find enough political courage and common sense to do the right thing. It would be historic, and everyone would be delighted. I think everyone could then say that we worked together to get something done that will really help people who are suffering and who need this help.
As someone mentioned earlier, this is also the workers' own money. This is not public money that falls from the sky, but rather premiums paid by workers and employers to create this fund, which must serve the people.
Unemployment is already not a choice anyone makes. It is something that can happen to anyone. People are victims of it. Illness is also never an individual choice; people are victims of it. Individuals who find themselves in this extremely distressing double situation must have all the necessary supports.
As parliamentarians, as elected members and representatives of the people, the least we can do is adapt our programs to meet the needs of the people, especially those in need.
We have to take it further than that. The 26 weeks that will be granted are not enough and will not meet the needs of 75% of the people who are sick. I do not understand why the Liberals are stopping halfway like that.
I want to talk about the employment insurance system in general. We are almost desperate for major EI reform. It makes no sense that for years, the majority of workers who contribute have not been eligible for benefits because they did not have enough hours to qualify. The system is completely broken. It went off the rails over the years and urgently needs to be modernized.
The Liberals said change was coming, but they have been saying that for a long time about certain issues. Fortunately, sometimes the NDP pushes them to reach an agreement in order to speed things up so the work can actually get done.
EI for seasonal workers, the five‑week pilot project for seasonal gappers or for self‑employed workers, is a disaster. There is nothing in that program that meets people's needs.
There are more and more freelancers, self-employed workers and contract workers in the new economy and in our society. Not only are they not eligible for benefits, but they also cannot even contribute because they are both an employer and an employee. They are not covered by the system. Gig workers, self-employed workers and freelancers are left out.
I was going to talk about the COVID‑19 pandemic using the past tense, but we just learned that Quebec is officially in the sixth wave of the pandemic. Unfortunately, this means that we may still be in it for a little longer. This pandemic has shown that our social safety net is flawed, gutted and in shambles, and it is clear that it needs to be rebuilt.
At the federal level, EI is a very important tool to help individuals get back on their feet. Our health care system needs assistance as well. It needs better protection and more funding. It needs guarantees and standards to ensure that people are getting good care from the public sector. We must not allow privatization and money to dictate whether someone can access care.
If not for the much-talked-about CERB and its successor, the CRB, a whole bunch of self-employed workers, freelancers and contract workers would have been forced to declare bankruptcy. We succeeded with the CRB. We negotiated with the minority Liberal government to increase the benefit to $2,000 and to extend the program when people needed it. However, that was a temporary measure, much like putting a bandage on a broken leg.
It is now time to not only increase the duration of sickness benefits to 52 weeks for those who need it, but also overhaul the EI regime. It must be done.
1461 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, does the name Marie‑Hélène Dubé mean anything to you?
For 10 years, she has been the voice of thousands of people, especially women, who are fighting serious illnesses like cancer under difficult conditions. They have had to deal not only with the illness, but also with the financial problems it causes because of the current limitations of Canada's Employment Insurance Act.
Marie‑Hélène submitted the largest-ever petition to the House, a petition signed by 600,000 people. Originally from Rivière‑du‑Loup, in my riding, Marie‑Hélène now lives in Montreal and has had cancer three times. Not one, not two, but three. She went through all her bouts with cancer in very precarious financial circumstances because the EI system only provides 15 weeks of benefits. Those with family members or friends battling this horrible illness of cancer know that it is not possible to recover in 15 weeks.
Statistics show that, in many cases, a minimum of 52 weeks of treatment is needed to beat the illness. Let us be clear, people affected by an illness certainly do not need financial stress on top of that. In an advanced country like Canada, where so-called progressive parties such as the Liberal Party and the NDP have united in the hope of providing free dental care and universal care for all, I find it inconceivable that the Liberals are proposing to increase benefits to only 26 weeks, or half the time required for a full and potentially complete recovery from the illness.
The vast majority of people affected by different types of cancer are women, and most of the time they are vulnerable. In this context, should a so-called feminist government led by a Prime Minister who calls himself a feminist not revisit its position on a bill such as this one?
Of course, Marie‑Hélène Dubé is not the only one who spent more than 10 years fighting for this cause and for people with serious illness, but we all know it is pretty rare to see someone so determined to further a cause. I am deeply grateful to her for all her hard work, which I hope will come to fruition this time. Over the past 10 years, several bills have been introduced to fix this injustice, including by the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. They got through several stages, but unfortunately went nowhere.
The Conservative association for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup instigated a proposal to make this issue one of our party's policies at the request of several people in my riding who received only 15 weeks of EI benefits to recover from diseases that often require more than a year of treatment. We cannot ignore that fact. That is why our party adopted this measure. Today I am proud to support the private member's bill introduced by my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière.
Life is short, and we must do everything we can to improve the lives of sick and vulnerable people, especially women. Less than a month ago, Stéphanie Bourgoin, a 35-year-old mother of three in my riding, found out she had breast cancer.
Are we even capable of imagining the impact of such news on the psyche of a dynamic, loving young mother of three or what she will have to go through? Does anyone think we should add insult to injury by telling her she can have a mere 15 weeks of EI benefits to get through this difficult time?
Another survivor in my riding, Nancy Dumont, had this to say about the issue we are attempting to address with Bill C‑215.
In an era of full employment, it is time to make major changes to the EI program. Needs have changed since the 1970s. Cancer is a scourge, and its impacts have tentacles that reach into all areas of our lives. I can assure you that all of my energy and all of my thoughts during these four long years centred on one thing: healing and living. It is inconceivable that people do not have access to a minimum of 52 weeks of sickness benefits.
When illness leads to bankruptcy or debt, we need to ask ourselves some questions as a society, as Canadians. As Terry Fox put it so well, not all marathons are won at the the finish line. Elected officials, you have a chance to make a real difference for the 229,200 Canadians who will receive a cancer diagnosis this year.
Canada must do better.
Please allow me to digress for a moment. Nancy Dumont started work again yesterday, after four years of fighting cancer. That is why my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière introduced Bill C-215 and why I am so pleased to support it. I hope this bill passes quickly, because we have done our homework on this issue.
I would remind members that the Parliamentary Budget Officer already analyzed the costs associated with this measure to extend EI benefits in the event of serious illness in 2019. According to his findings at the time, extending benefits from 15 to 50 weeks would have a financial impact of $1.1 billion in 2020, rising to $1.3 billion by 2025. This might seem like a huge number, but the government has a budget of $400 billion. In any case, that money would not come from the government, but from the pockets of workers and employers.
As Conservatives, we are always concerned about public spending, and we do not wish to increase the tax burden on Canadians to the point where our competitiveness would be jeopardized. I would therefore remind the House that EI premiums do not come from tax revenues, but rather from the direct contributions of employers and workers.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer calculated that this billion dollars, distributed among all workers, would mean employees would have to contribute 6¢ more, which, in 2019, was $1.62 for every $100 in insurable earnings, up to the maximum insurable earnings of $53,000 per year.
I want to point out that the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a study yesterday with an update on those figures. Because the labour shortage has brought down the unemployment rate, the employee contribution has dropped to just $1.58 for every $100 in earnings. Even if we were to add the aforementioned 6¢ to ensure that all Canadians are covered for up to 52 weeks in the event of a serious illness, that contribution amount would be $1.64, which is less than the 2018 premium rate of $1.66.
This increase would put the maximum additional contribution per year at $31.86 for the employee and $44.60 for the employer. I am an employer, and $45 a year per employee would not change much for my business. Governments have implemented other measures in recent years that have had more of an impact on my business.
I also want to note that this amount of 6¢ per $100 falls well short of the regulatory requirements in connection with the disability insurance or balance protection products offered by the mortgage, vehicle financing or consumer credit sectors. With this measure, the vast majority of the public will save money.
This measure to extend EI benefits in the event of serious illness from 15 weeks to 52 was part of our election platform in 2021. I talked about this issue on the campaign trail for 30 days. I met many people who had gone through such tragedies.
All my colleagues in the Conservative Party want this measure to be brought in because it is compassionate and family focused, which lines up perfectly with our values. I invite all my colleagues to rally behind Bill C‑215 and ensure it is passed quickly, because sick people do not choose when they will get sick.
Stéphanie Bourgoin, a young 35‑year old mother in my riding, cannot wait until this summer or next year. She has cancer now, so she needs benefits now.
In closing, I heard what my Liberal colleague said earlier, that people would abuse the program in some cases. I honestly do not think that we are in any position to talk about women and accuse them of stealing. As my colleagues have pointed out, it is the doctors who issue certificates of serious illness, and they are the ones who determine how long the individual will be entitled to the program.
By the way, I congratulate my colleague and all of my colleagues. However, I will not congratulate the Liberals if they do not support this measure. It is a compassionate measure and one that is important for all those who are sick in Canada. As a society, we cannot afford not to pass such a bill.
1532 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 6:50:13 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate.
Before I recognize the hon. parliamentary secretary, I must inform him that he has three minutes today and that he may finish his speech the next time this matter is debated.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
