Bill C-278 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine)

This enactment extends the maximum period for which benefits for illness, injury or quarantine may be paid from fifteen weeks to fifty weeks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We can now continue with our study, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, December 5, 2006, of Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine).

We will now go clause by clause.

Go ahead, Mr. Lake.

(On clause 1)

[Kenneth Kyle, Director, Public Issues, Canadian Cancer Society]

Thank you.

First off, let me thank all parties and all members for their support for the Canadian strategy for cancer control. This is a wonderful thing, and I think this bill fits nicely within that.

The Canadian Cancer Society, on behalf of its 220,000 volunteers across the country, welcomes this opportunity to address the issue of the employment insurance illness benefit. We congratulate committee members for tackling this important health issue.

I will present five reasons to show why 15 weeks of benefits is not long enough for cancer patients.

Number one, an individual may have been ill or unable to work for quite a while before he or she applies for EI benefits. In the case of a cancer patient, there would have undoubtedly been waiting times for diagnostic tests and surgery before receiving a diagnosis, and a recovery waiting period prior to the start of treatment.

Second, once started, treatment is typically spread over many months, and recovery can take several more months.

Third, individuals facing serious illness have many collateral financial stresses, including the cost of uninsured treatment and drugs, travel costs for specialized treatment, special diets, and non-prescribed medical supplies. Temporary income replacement of longer duration would greatly relieve many of these burdens. As has been referred to earlier, a 2004 Canadian breast cancer network survey of nearly 500 women with breast cancer found that there is a significant, unexpected, and stressful financial impact on women diagnosed with breast cancer and on their families. When asked whether 15 weeks of employment insurance benefits were enough to get them through treatment, 75% of respondents said they were not long enough, and 76% of respondents reported being off work for over 15 weeks.

Fourth, chemo patients can be immune-suppressed for a period of time after completion of treatment and thus need to remain segregated from groups, extending the optimal recovery period.

Fifth, even after an individual completes treatment for a serious illness, there are many vague lingering effects, although medical documentation is difficult. For example, chemotherapy patients report concentration and endurance deficits—they call this “chemo fog”—fatigue, personality changes, and the like; these deficits impact their ability to perform job tasks at safe or pre-condition levels. Psychological issues around serious illness and suitability for return to work may be poorly documented, but they are nonetheless very real.

For many patients the recovery from the effects of cancer often takes many months. Requiring recovering cancer patients to return to the workforce before they have regained some measure of improved health is to put in jeopardy the patients' and their families' prospects for recovery.

We all bear the burden when a patient returns too early to the workforce. When their recovery falters and their health suffers, there are increased costs, not only to the health care system but also to family life, the economy, and other contributions of individuals to society.

Bill C-278 is a good bill. The Canadian Cancer Society urges committee members to support it.

Thank you.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and committee members. This is the first time I've been a witness at a committee, after six years of asking questions.

I'd also like to thank my two witnesses here today. They've helped a lot on this bill and have given us a lot of background information. Manuel is from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, and Ken's from the Canadian Cancer Society. They're going to take three minutes each to give their perspectives, and then we'll be open for questions.

As you know, my bill is Bill C-278. It's a bill to increase EI sickness benefit eligibility from 15 weeks to 50 weeks due to a prescribed illness, injury, or quarantine.

When the EI Act was passed in the late 1990s, sickness benefits were provided in the spirit of compassion and support for someone who has to leave the job market temporarily due to illness. This financial support is intended to allow an individual to focus on their treatment and get well, so that they can return to the work force as soon as possible.

Current legislation allows the claimant to receive up to a maximum of 15 weeks. The time span for which a claimant is eligible is determined by a medical certificate from a health care professional, attesting to the person's inability to work and stating the probable duration of the illness.

Many of us have had constituents, friends, and family members who have experienced financial hardship as they recovered from a debilitating disease such as cancer, heart, or respiratory disease, or any other of the many serious afflictions that we face as Canadians. A persistent scenario, however, and one familiar to many of the MPs here and to many of your staff—we had it in our office—is that we have people who have applied for EI sickness benefits and have received the full fifteen weeks, but have found themselves incapable of returning to work.

A 2004 survey of women fighting breast cancer revealed that a full 76% of the respondents reported being off work for more than the 15-week period. One of our local doctors, Dr. Ron MacCormick, head oncologist at the Cape Breton Cancer Centre, will attest that it can take at least one year after treatment for cancer before the patient will start to regain their energy. In fact, most oncologists will tell you that treatment surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation alone can take up to a year.

The harsh reality is that diseases such as these are attacking people of all ages. The unfortunate part is that these people still potentially have lots of years of work left ahead of them. Moreover, if we don't enact programs to bridge that gap when they are sick, we will continue to be faced with people returning to work too early, with an inherent potential of relapse.

Too many are facing unnecessary financial stress at a time when they should be directing 100% of their energies toward battling their ailments and recovering. No Canadian, nor any of their loved ones, should be left trying to figure out where they're going to get the money to pay the rent, buy groceries, or pay to heat their home.

Mr. Chair, there remains a misconception that a claimant who has maximized EI sickness benefits can simply apply for Canada Pension Plan disability benefits. As many MPs would know, the criteria for this program are strict, and most often patients are denied because they're not considered 100% disabled. The small number who do meet the criteria are faced with a three-month application process, and there's a long waiting period before the CPP disability kicks in.

Once again, let me state that only a small percentage of people will be awarded CPP disability. We also need to recognize—and this is very important—that not all employers, as many of you know, offer long-term disability programs.

It is evident that a one-size-fits-all approach is failing sick Canadians, a fact realized by a subcommittee of this committee in the last Parliament. Among the recommendations from that committee was to increase the number of weeks that sickness benefits can be claimed. The department's 2005 employment insurance monitoring and assessment report states: “About 32% of sickness beneficiaries in 2004/05 used the entire 15 weeks of benefits to which they were entitled.” This portion has been relatively stable in recent years, suggesting that for some types of claimants, 15 weeks is not enough.

Determining exactly how many Canadians need extra help is quite hard to quantify, given that the length of time a claimant would receive benefits is decided by an independent source—namely, a doctor. The 2004-05 data, however, suggest a potential maximum 95,000 claimants would have been entitled to more weeks of sickness benefits under Bill C-278. Based on a 2005 monitoring and assessment report, we can assume that a small proportion of these 95,000 would be claiming benefits to the full 50 weeks.

I mentioned my supporters here, but the list of stakeholder supporters forBill C-278 is substantial. It includes letters of support; we have letters of support from the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Lung Association, the Cape Breton Cancer Centre, social workers of Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, and many front-line health workers.

Mr. Chairman, we also received support from such labour organizations as the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Auto Workers.

I would urge you to follow their lead and support this bill. This bill is a bill for our time. EI sickness benefits remain the only viable vehicle to help alleviate the financial burden for individuals suffering from a major illness, and for whom 15 weeks is simply not enough to get better and return to work.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's my portion. I'm going to pass it on to my witness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We'll do that, and then we'll do the same thing as last time. Because we have bells at 5:30, we're going to have one round of five minutes of questions and a second round of four minutes.

You guys can go ahead and give us your presentation on Bill C-278.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, December 5, we're examining Bill C-278, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act on benefits for illness, injury, or quarantine.

We have Mr. Eyking here, and he is going to give us his presentation. I believe we also have Mr. Kyle, from the Canadian Cancer Society, as well as Mr. Arango, from the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

I certainly want to welcome all of you here today.

How are we going to do this, Mr. Eyking? Are you going to share your time?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

May I make a suggestion, Mr. Chair?

This question has to do with Bill C-278, which was introduced by his own party and will be debated immediately afterwards.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Lessard, we're not suggesting any witnesses on Bill C-269. In fact, there are two on Bill C-278, the Cancer Society and the Heart and Stroke Foundation, that want to speak in support of the bill because of the number of Canadians who were disabled from those two diseases.

Perhaps what I should do is propose an amendment that only the sponsor of Bill C-269 be heard and leave Bill C-278 completely off the table, or I can take out the whole line, line 86.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The witnesses are just relating to Bill C-278, and it's the Cancer Society and a couple of the stakeholders.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

The other thing is on page 2 it says for amendments to Bill C-269 and Bill C-278 that the deadline would be March 1 at noon. On the calendar that we have in front of us we would actually be going clause by clause on March 1. I want to ensure that three hours would be sufficient time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You are proposing that only the sponsors of Bill C-269 and Bill C-278 be heard on these studies and the others just be struck.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I think there has been some miscommunication that could be rectified very easily.

On February 28 it indicates that we're hearing from sponsors of Bill C-269 and Bill C-278. Down below it indicates that only the sponsors of those bills be heard. A number of witnesses have been submitted for Bill C-278. I've spoken to the sponsor of that bill. He would be satisfied to include two of them, the Cancer Society and the Heart and Stroke Foundation, which represent the two biggest disabling diseases in Canada. They are anxious to speak on that bill, and if we could amend this to reflect that he would share his hour on February 28 with those two representative groups, he would be fine with that, and so would I.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, thank you very much.

Just before I thank all of our witnesses for being here today, I do want to remind everyone that if there are any witnesses you would like to see when we talk about Bill C-36, Bill C-269, or Bill C-278, could you get those to the clerk by Tuesday at noon. Christine will be sending out a notice to that effect, but it is Thursday now and we'll be heading to Friday and Monday. And remember there are the amendments for Bill C-57 as well, but you do have until Wednesday at noon to get them in.

Once again, I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here today, and thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules.

The meeting is adjourned.

Bill C-265--Employment Insurance Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have had this debate on Bill C-278. I appreciate the argument by the member for Acadie—Bathurst but the recommendation of the Auditor General that all the premiums and benefits flow through the consolidated revenue fund does constitute government spending.

I concur with the arguments raised by the deputy House leader of the government that in this case as well a royal recommendation would be required.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to Bill C-265. Without commenting on the merits of the private member's bill, I would appreciate your consideration on whether the bill requires a royal recommendation under Standing Order 79.

Bill C-265 would increase employment insurance benefits by lowering the threshold for eligibility for some claimants in changing the formula for the calculation of benefits. Both of these changes would result in significant new expenditures under the Employment Insurance Act.

Precedence clearly establishes that bills that create new government expenditures for employment insurance benefits require a royal recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, on December 8, 2004, you ruled, in the case of the 38th Parliament's bill, Bill C-278, which extended employment insurance benefits, that:

Inasmuch as section 54 of the Constitution, 1867, and Standing Order 79 prohibit the adoption of any bill appropriating public revenues without a royal recommendation, the same must apply to bills authorizing increased spending of public revenues. Bills mandating new or additional public spending must be seen as the equivalent of bills effecting an appropriation.

On November 6, 2006, you ruled, in the case of Bill C-269, extending employment insurance benefits, that:

Funds may only be appropriated by Parliament for purposes covered by a royal recommendation, as explicitly stated in Standing Order 79(1). New purposes must be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.

Again, on November 10, 2006, you ruled, in the case of Bill C-278, extending benefits, that:

...would require the expenditure of additional funds in a manner and for a purpose not currently authorized. Although contributions to the employment insurance program are indeed made by employers and employees, appropriations for the program are taken from the consolidated revenue fund and any increase in such spending would require a royal recommendation.

These precedents apply equally to Bill C-265, which should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Employment Insurance Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

It being 3:04 p.m., pursuant to order made on Friday, November 24, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-278 under private members' business.

Call in the members.