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.

Employment Insurance Act

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

moved that Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I recognize the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, on May 31, 2006, you invited members to comment on whether Bill C-278 would require a royal recommendation.

Without commenting on the merits of this private member's bill, I would appreciate your consideration of whether this bill requires a royal recommendation since the bill provides a significant increase in the expenditure of funds.

Currently the employment insurance program includes a 15-week sickness benefit period to provide temporary income support to individuals who are injured or too sick to work. Bill C-278 would extend the maximum period for which benefits for illness, injury or quarantine may be paid from the current 15 weeks to 50 weeks.

On December 8, 2004, Mr. Speaker, you found that a similar private member's bill required a royal recommendation since it would have increased EI benefits by extending the benefit period. You said:

The improvements to the employment insurance program envisioned by this bill include the required minimum number of hours worked in order to qualify, lengthening the period that one can receive benefits, and, as well, increasing those benefits.

It is clear that such changes to the employment insurance program would have the effect of authorizing increased expenditures of public revenue. Inasmuch as section 54 of the Constitution Act, 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.

Mr. Speaker, the principles in the above ruling should apply to Bill C-278, which would increase benefits by extending the benefit period, thereby requiring increased spending of public revenues. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that Bill C-278 should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, regarding this point of order, I completely disagree with my Conservative colleague.

We have already debated this in the House and we are awaiting the Speaker's ruling.

The member refers to public money, but in this case, these funds are not what is generally referred to as public money. Usually, when we speak of public money, we mean taxpayers' money, received through income tax, the GST, etc. In this case, only workers and employers contribute to the employment insurance fund. This money belongs to the workers.

In my opinion, a royal recommendation is not necessary in this case, because the employment insurance program belongs to workers. For this reason, I would like to stress that a royal recommendation is not necessary and we should allow Parliament to decide what will be done with the employment insurance money.

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

Mr. Speaker, I simply would like to agree with my colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, on his statement.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I would like to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his submission, as well as the hon. members for Acadie—Bathurst and Sydney—Victoria. We will take all these submissions under advisement and get back to the House in due course.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to begin the second reading debate on Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine).

I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to all my colleagues in this House who have already expressed to me their support for this piece of legislation and who, like me, know constituents, friends or family members who have experienced financial hardship as they recovered from debilitating diseases such as cancer, respiratory disease, heart disease, arthritis, or one of the many other ailments that afflict people in our society.

I must also extend a special thanks to the MP for Cape Breton—Canso who seconded the bill at first reading.

As I stated, Bill C-278 deals with the Employment Insurance Act and specifically paragraph 12(3)(c) pertaining to sickness benefits.

When the EI Act was passed in the late 1990s, sickness benefits were provided in the spirit of compassion and support for someone who had to leave the job market temporarily to battle a disease. This financial support allowed an individual to focus on his or her treatment and to get well so he or she could return to the workforce as soon as possible.

To qualify under the sickness benefits provision, a claimant must have worked for a period of 600 or more hours of insurable employment during the qualifying period and must not be receiving similar benefits from another level of government or a private company. In order to determine the length of time a person would receive benefits, a claimant must provide a medical certificate from a medical professional attesting to the person's inability to work and stating the duration of the illness, injury or quarantine. Said another way, the number of weeks is set by the doctor who provides officials at the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development with a medical certificate which tells them how long a person should receive benefits.

Under the regulations, there is an appeal mechanism for HRSD officials in the event the time recommended seems inappropriate, but that is seldom used. A person's physician after all is almost always the best person to determine how long it will take his or her patient to recover and be able to return to the workforce. The act, however, does have a restriction on how long a doctor can recommend extending EI benefits which is a maximum of 15 weeks. Bill C-278 addresses this length of time.

My constituency office in Cape Breton, like many of the constituency offices of my colleagues, deals with many different types of federal government programs. In my riding of Sydney—Victoria, we deal with everything from immigration cases, to economic development funding, and of course employment insurance benefits, to name just a few.

One recurring issue that my staff have had to deal with is people who have applied for EI sickness benefits and have received the full 15 weeks available under the act but have found themselves incapable of returning to work. Quite simply, some claimants find that 15 weeks is just not long enough to either receive their full treatment or to have ample time to recover from a surgery or procedure. They are unable to go back to work and are in considerable financial difficulty. The resulting stress on them and their family is unwelcome, especially when they are already dealing with pain and the stress of battling a disease.

It is unfortunate that at the very time when 100% of a person's energy should be focused on getting better, his or her EI sickness benefits suddenly come to an end. The person is forced to deal not only with the stress of trying to get well but of finding money to pay rent, buy groceries, heat the home, you name it. All those bills start adding up. This is simply counterproductive.

We have seen, over the years, medical study after medical study pointing to the fact that stress has a negative effect on our bodies. Certainly it would have a negative impact on a person's effort to recover from a prolonged or serious ailment.

I do not profess to be the first to raise this issue. As many members know, the Standing Committee on Human Resources and Skills Development struck a subcommittee in the previous Parliament to look at the Employment Insurance Act and ways that the act could be improved or modified. In fact the subcommittee was chaired by my colleague, the member for Cape Breton—Canso. One of the 28 recommendations coming out of the research conducted and the testimony taken at the subcommittee addressed the issue of sickness benefits and recommended that the number of weeks must be increased.

A similar refrain appears to come from the very department that manages the employment insurance program. Each year the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development issues what is called the employment insurance monitoring and assessment report. In the most recent report, the issue of the length of time a person is eligible for sickness benefits has been noted. I am going to quote the 2005 report:

About 32% of sickness beneficiaries in 2004/05 used the entire 15 weeks of benefits to which they were entitled. This proportion has been relatively stable in recent years, suggesting that for some types of claimants or illnesses, 15 weeks of benefits may not be sufficient.

This HRSD report points to the very issue that Bill C-278 seeks to address.

We have all witnessed legislation which has gone through the House and which appears to have dealt with an issue effectively, but after the actual program has been put into practice, we have realized that adjustments have been needed to refine it and make it fit into real life circumstances. This is one such case.

I want to be clear here. The bill would increase the total number of weeks someone could receive sickness benefits to up to 50 weeks. This does not mean that all claimants require that amount of time to seek treatment, to recover or to re-enter the workforce. In fact, the same 2005 employment insurance monitoring and assessment report that I referenced points out that the average length of time that people draw benefits is nine and a half weeks. The average length is not 15 weeks; it is nine and a half weeks.

Again, a doctor should determine the length of time that a person should receive benefits. In some cases, the doctor may determine that it is in the best interests of the person to return to the workforce sooner, but there are cases when people need more time to recover, when they should not have to return to work early and risk prolonging their illness and possibly having a relapse.

The most glaring instance of this is with respect to the treatment of cancer. All of us know someone with cancer, whether it is someone in our ridings or in our families. A 2004 survey of women fighting breast cancer revealed that a full 76% of respondents reported being off work for more than 15 weeks. They need more than 15 weeks to treat breast cancer. In fact, most oncologists will say that it takes up to a year for a person to go through chemotherapy, sometimes surgery, and to recover from these procedures. It is imperative in my mind that we find a way to help people through such a very difficult time.

I would put to the House that the spirit and intent back when the Employment Insurance Act sickness benefits provisions were first enacted was to help people through such hard times. Times have changed. There seem to be more people with cancer, but it is more easily cured, so we have to change the act accordingly.

I am very happy to report to the House that Bill C-278 has been well received by many stakeholders close to the issue, people who know and are involved with this issue. I am in receipt of letters of support from national organizations such as the Canadian Cancer Society and provincial organizations such as the Lung Association of Nova Scotia.

I am also hearing from front line workers such as social workers at the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto. As many of my colleagues are well aware, the Princess Margaret Hospital is one of the leading cancer treatment, research and education facilities in this country. They would know how important this is.

In a letter, the social workers at the hospital endorsed the bill and noted that patients with breast cancer need up to 12 months for treatment, and for leukemia the length of time ranges from 9 to 12 months. They also noted that the intent of the cancer treatment is curative with patient participation providing the foundation for patients to return to work following the completion of their treatments.

I have also received support from many leading labour organizations, including the Canadian Labour Congress, as well as the Canadian Auto Workers. In a letter, Mr. Buzz Hargrove, the national president of the Canadian Auto Workers, noted that the Supreme Court confirmed that the federal government has a responsibility for EI benefits when workers are temporarily separated from their work due to sickness, parental leave or compassionate care.

I am bolstered by the support of all these organizations. So many people have called me from across the country to say that they see the benefit of this. Some did not have the benefits when they went through their treatments, but they see the benefit for people with illnesses and ailments down the road. They see how it makes us a more productive society. They see how it helps people through life's hard times so that they do not fall through the cracks, do not lose their vehicles and fall by the wayside under tremendous stress. It helps people to get back into society and be productive.

This points to a need for this legislation. It speaks to the fact that people are dealing with this issue daily. The job of health professionals, associations and organizations is to make people better. Our job is to help people financially while they are getting treatment. These organizations represent workers that are afflicted by prolonged and serious diseases. These people are all behind this bill.

I would ask the House to recognize the importance of extending these EI benefits to 50 weeks. I ask the House to support the bill and to pass it at second reading.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria quoted some of the recommendations in a report and he talked about some of the subcommittee recommendations.

He was a former Liberal government member whose party, a little over a year ago, declared that the current EI sickness benefit was adequate. I too want to quote as he did. In a parliamentary committee response from May 2005, the then Liberal government stated:

...the majority of workers who turn to EI when they are unable to work due to illness or injury, 15 weeks is meeting the objective of providing temporary income support.

The Liberal government also declared:

In the event a worker's illness or injury extends beyond that period of time, long term income protection may be available through the Canada pension plan and other employment related benefits.

Clearly, the position is seemingly in contradiction to the crux of Bill C-278. Consequently, I wonder if the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria could inform the House as to why the arguments of his former Liberal government are no longer valid.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that our society is changing. At one time people who got cancer died. Now they get cancer and they come back to society and they are also working.

What is also very important to recognize is the work of the subcommittee. My hon. colleague from Cape Breton—Canso is here and he will talk about that later.

The subcommittee did its homework and it found out that 15 weeks are not long enough. As I have stated many times, the average is nine and a half weeks. Some people only need three weeks. The subcommittee found that with certain illnesses, such as a heart attack or cancer, 15 weeks are not enough.

We have these subcommittees and these reports from EI on an ongoing basis and they tell us our society is changing, the demand on society is changing and the treatment of illnesses is changing. We need to help these workers get through these changes.

That is why I am here as a private member bringing this bill forward. That is why I am receiving support from most of my colleagues on this very important issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly the Bloc Québécois and I are very happy to see this bill introduced by our Liberal colleague. I want to repeat the parliamentary secretary's question, because it is very important. I think that this question is crucial to our credibility in the eyes of the people who elected us to Parliament.

I repeat that we support this bill and that we feel it is a good thing that this bill has been introduced, but I would like to come back to the question our Conservative colleague asked, which has to do with credibility in the eyes of the public.

Our colleague says that what has changed is the impact of job loss, the resulting situation, and mentions finding out that there are victims who need these benefits. But I am not convinced. I would like to know how it is that, once on this side of the House, the member suddenly discovered that people are in need.

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

Mr. Speaker, I talked with the member for Chambly—Borduas earlier in the week. It has been brought to my attention that he did a lot of work on the bill. People cannot pay their bills. People have financial difficulties because they have no income, which is why we need to help them bridge this moment.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the expansion of the employment insurance system proposed in Bill C-278, legislation seeking to extend the maximum period from 15 weeks to 50 weeks for which EI benefits for illness, injury or a quarantine may be paid.

While I share the concern for those who must be absent from work owing to illness, I believe we should carefully review the adequacy of the EI sickness benefits available at present before endorsing the changes proposed in this bill.

Currently, the EI program provides for a 15 week sickness benefit designed to provide short term income replacement to individuals who are absent from their job due to illness, injury or quarantine. Claimants qualify with a medical certificate and 600 hours of insured work in the past year, as little as 12 hours a week.

Sickness benefits thus provide a quick response to those in need and they are fully integrated with the other EI benefits for job loss, such as maternity or parental benefits and compassionate care benefits.

The Canada Employment Insurance Commission monitors and assesses the impacts of the employment insurance system on the economy, communities and individuals, reporting its finding in an annual report.

The commission's latest report noted that the average duration of sickness benefits through 2004-05 remained stable at 9.5 weeks. This is consistent with a recent Statistics Canada study stating that the average work absence owing to illness or a disability has remained constant at 10 weeks for the past 13 years.

When viewed in this context, the 15 week EI sickness benefit is meeting the program's objective of providing short term, temporary income support to workers when they are ill.

For the interest of the House, I note that such a position is similar to that of the former Liberal government, which included the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria. In its response to a report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons of Disabilities tabled in May 2005, the former Liberal government clearly stated that EI sickness benefits, as presently constructed, were adequately meeting its intended objective. I will quote verbatim from the Liberal response:

...the majority of workers who turn to EI when they are unable to work due to illness or injury, 15 weeks is meeting the objective of providing temporary income support.

As I previously stated, I would concur with such an assessment. Furthermore, I would question the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria for a logical explanation as to why such a reasoning is no longer valid.

Moreover, when considering changes to the EI sickness benefits, we should be cognizant of the diverse range of other programs or supports available for those absent from the labour market due to illness.

At present, EI sickness benefits are designed as a short term income replacement measure that complement, and I underline the word complement, a range of other supports that are available for longer term illnesses and disability, including benefits offered through employer sponsored group insurance plans, private coverage held by individuals and long term disability benefits available under the Canada pension plan.

Before adding 35 weeks to the 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits now available, we need to fully understand the needs of clients and the impacts on other types of support benefits. An extensive examination of other possible implications would also be required.

Such an examination would have to take into account a number of issues. One is a thorough study of the effects such an extension would have on the labour market, particularly with respect to employer-employee relationships. For example, under the current EI provision, an employer can expect an employee's return to work after a limited absence for health reasons or, if the person is unable to return, the establishment of other arrangements suited to a long term disability.

EI sickness benefits are intended to replace lost income for short term absence. If they were greatly extended, how would this affect the employer's obligation? When, for instance, would this working relationship end? This relationship bears careful consideration and consultation before contemplating any steps to extend sickness benefits.

In addition, an option for employers under the EI program is a reduction in their premiums if they provide coverage to their employees for short term illness, injury or quarantine that is at least equivalent to EI benefits.

Currently, reduced premiums are paid on about 60% of all insurable earnings in Canada, representing reduced premiums of about half a billion dollars for 34,000 employers across the country.

Clearly, a change of the magnitude proposed under Bill C-278 would considerably affect employers and the premium reduction program would require thorough examination to determine the full impact on businesses.

Another consideration is that the coverage employers provide to their employees is sometimes underwritten by private companies and an extended EI fund and sickness benefit could be in direct competition with the private sector in many instances.

An analysis of the effects on private insurers would be essential. The administration of EI itself would also be greatly affected by such a change.

At the present time, EI sickness benefits are simply and quickly processed based on a medical certificate from the claimant's doctor. If the duration of these benefits were increased substantially, it could require a reassessment of current EI sickness, design and delivery, including expanding medical assessment requirements, such as requiring a third party or a government doctor to issue the medical certificate. The relatively quick response now available might suffer or require the introduction of multi-step approvals on longer claims.

There is also the consideration of mixed claims. Often, claimants need a variety of EI benefits to combine, for example, maternity and sickness. The bill does not reflect its possible impact on other parts of the EI Act that would also need to be changed, such as dealing with combined special benefit claims.

Finally, the cost factor is certainly another important consideration. Considerable research would be required to determine an accurate cost estimate of increasing the benefit entitlement as extensively as proposed in the bill.

Nevertheless, we do share the hon. member's compassion for the people who find themselves unable to work due to illness. Indeed, our new government is committed to the monitoring and assessing of all aspects of the EI program to ensure it continues to serve Canadians in an effective and in a timely manner. This includes sickness benefits. We appreciate that some persons are absent from work for more than 15 weeks due to illness. However, at this point it is not clear as to whether EI is the appropriate mechanism for responding to these longer term absences from the labour market.

Nevertheless, further examination of the implications of extending EI sickness benefits, both within and outside of the parameters of Bill C-278, may be warranted.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, I will recall for the benefit of the people watching us today, increases from 15 to 50 the maximum number of weeks during which benefits may be paid for illness, injury or quarantine. Actually part of the title of this employment insurance bill is “benefits for illness, injury or quarantine.”

I indicated a while ago that we are delighted that a Liberal member of Parliament has tabled this bill. This shows some progress concerning the understanding of the issue and probably the degree of compassion we may feel for people who are victims of illness, a work accident or quarantine for contamination or some other reason.

The Bloc has worked constantly with a view to improving the employment insurance program, as our colleague indicated awhile ago. Since 2005, many measures have been proposed in the House, most of which have been rejected, particularly by the government then in place. We were hoping for progress of course with this new government in order to improve the situation of people who have the misfortune of being away from work because of illness, accident or quarantine.

One of the proposed measures appears in the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, namely recommendation 27. It reads as follows:

The Committee recommends that the government study the possibility of extending sickness benefits by 35 weeks for those who suffer from a prolonged and serious illness.

In other words, with an extension of 35 weeks beyond the 15, we get the 50 weeks proposed by our colleague in his bill.

It is interesting to note, however, that the Liberals are suddenly becoming concerned about unemployment. I do not particularly wish to attack the member, because he took this initiative, but my earlier question was to this effect: how is it that once a party in government is defeated it suddenly becomes sensitive to such situations? Actually the context, that is, the workers’ situation, was the same barely a year ago, when we submitted this recommendation to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

The Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of a substantial improvement to the entire employment insurance program, which of course includes amendments to the number of weeks of sick leave for absences caused by illness, accidents and quarantine.

The following is a history of the last two years. I want to remind the House briefly to provide some context.

On November 15, 2004, our colleague, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, introduced Bill C-278 proposing those improvements to the system. The party in power at the time, the Liberals, opposed royal assent.

On December 13, 2004, Senator Pierrette Ringuette, a member of the Task Force on Seasonal Work appointed by the Prime Minister of the time, issued her dissenting report entitled “Dissent and Distress”, a very meaningful title in view of the situation facing the unemployed.

On December 16, 2004, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities issued the first part of its report with the recommendations I just mentioned. This report was completed on February 15, 2005 and contained 28 recommendations.

On February 23 of the same year, the then Minister of Human Resources announced three minimal new measures to try to mitigate the problems facing regions that suffer from what is commonly called the seasonal gap or black hole.

Finally, on April 15, 2005, the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another Act in consequence, which my colleague from the Basse-Côte-Nord sponsored. The purpose of this bill was to create an independent employment insurance fund.

I remember the Conservatives promising during the last election campaign to create this independent fund, but they still have not done it.

In May of this year, the Bloc introduced Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), to change employment insurance. I hope that our colleagues will vote in favour of this bill, and I hope that the Conservatives will not invoke royal assent this time.

More recently in October, this week in fact, we introduced Bill C-344, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another Act in consequence to create and establish an independent fund.

As can be seen, the Bloc has never stopped demanding improvements to the independent employment insurance fund. But all we have ever received are systematic refusals from each succeeding government.

I would like to return to how much we need the bill we are discussing and describe the situation in which people find themselves when they must be absent for the reasons covered by the bill.

In 2004 and 2005, the number of applications for sickness benefits increased by 0.1% to reach 294,350. Total sickness benefit payments increased by 4.5% to reach $813 million, while average weekly sickness benefits were $285. Hon. members talked about the costs earlier, although they have not changed very much.

People do not live very comfortably and do not go to restaurants very often on this amount of money. There was a 1.7% increase in comparison with 2003 and 2004. The average number of weeks over which sickness benefits are paid has remained relatively stable over the last few years.

During the years I mentioned, claims for sickness benefits have decreased among men. This is interesting to note because it allows us to see who ends up in certain situations and who has to stop working because of an illness or an accident. Those who are most vulnerable—either in terms of the insecurity of their employment or their working conditions—are women and older workers. During that time frame, this decreased by 1.2% in men and increased by 1.1% in women, even though the proportion of women who filed claims for sickness benefits remained relatively stable in 2004-05.

Women continued to file the majority of the claims for this type of benefit, at 59%. Claims for sickness benefits decreased by 2.8% among young people 15 to 24 and by 2.9% among workers 25 to 44, whereas they increased by 3.5% among workers 45 to 54 and by 7.1% among workers over 55. This confirms what I just said: certain categories of workers are more vulnerable than others because they are put in more precarious situations to do their work.

In closing, since I have just two minutes remaining, I want to reiterate that the bill currently before us is important. I am calling on the Conservative Party, which is now in power and whose attitude toward workers has been consistently insensitive, to take the next step.

This time, at least let the House vote on this bill without demanding a royal recommendation.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to bill C-278.

Clause 1 of this bill states:

1. Paragraph 12(3)(c) of the Employment Insurance Act is replaced by the following:

(c) because of a prescribed illness, injury or quarantine is 50;

I congratulate the member for Sydney—Victoria for tabling this bill in the House of Commons.

We should also mention the integrity of certain members who made some regrettable comments. There is no way around it, I am obliged to say it.

In the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, recommendations were made concerning employment insurance. Some Liberals were present—when they were in power—and recommended certain motions. I remember one motion. The chair of the committee was the member for Cape Breton—Canso. Then the time came to present the motion to the House of Commons.

In June of last year, I presented a motion regarding the 12 weeks. I recall that the member for Cape Breton—Canso, who had recommended the changes to employment insurance, voted in favour of the change. However, two other Liberals, who had recommended changes to employment insurance, voted against their own recommendation when the motion was presented to the House of Commons. It is disgraceful. I am speaking of the member for Beauséjour and the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

We could have made changes to employment insurance but we did not get them. I have to say it. I will keep saying it as long as I am a member of the House of Commons.

I heard the Parliamentary Secretary for Human Resources and Social Development say that his government does not wish to make changes to employment insurance because he is concerned that it would affect private companies and insurance companies. That is unbelievable. The government is afraid that it could affect working people and the companies, because there would no be enough workers.

With all due respect, we are talking about people with cancer who have to undergo chemotherapy. It is not their choice. Their doctor tells them they cannot work for 12 months. As if that were not bad enough, their income is cut off after 15 weeks.

I find that position inhumane. These are human beings, workers who pay into a system. That system has a $50 billion surplus. We want the money deducted from our paycheques back. We want that money so we can buy an employment insurance system.

The Liberal member from Prince Edward Island should not be laughing. His party voted against the motion.

I also think it is important to look closely at what the government said. It said there are other avenues, such as the Canada pension fund. I am sorry, but Canadian workers who fall ill cannot benefit from the Canada pension fund unless they have already been sick for a year. One has to have been sick for nearly two years before becoming eligible for the Canada pension fund.

If we are prepared to consider the possibility of using the Canada pension fund, why not use it when the doctor says the worker cannot return to work for 12 months? At that point, the worker should automatically be eligible for Canada pension fund benefits. That might be a solution.

But that is not what we are debating right now. We do not have the right to use the Canada pension fund. People do not have the right to employment insurance. The only thing they can get is welfare, and that is certainly not good for their health.

I listened to what the government members said a few minutes ago. Why do they not look at this issue regarding employment insurance? We are talking about people who are sick and the doctors say they cannot go back to work for one year. We are not talking about individuals who just have a cold. We are not talking about people who break their legs and 16 weeks later they could be on the job.

We are not talking about someone who has broken his arm. We are talking about someone who has cancer and whose doctors say he cannot go back to work for 12 months because he must have cancer treatment. And with $50 billion in the employment insurance account, do we not have the humanity to say yes, we will give it to him? This is a program that belongs to the working people and the businesses. Why do we not let them make the decision, not the government?

If the Conservatives go with the royal recommendation, I think it is totally unfair. It is inhuman and the government should not be in power. I hope Canadians see that. I hope every worker listening to me tonight will never give a vote to the Conservative Party when the Conservatives cannot have even a little bit of compassion for a person who is sick.

As for coming into the House and saying they do not want to hurt the private business of insurance companies, I will tell members something. The fish plant workers in my riding do not have a private plan. The fish plant workers in Newfoundland and Labrador do not have any private plans. The fish plant workers from P.E.I., even if the member from P.E.I. was laughing, do not have those plans. I say we have the responsibility as legislators here to give that plan back to the working people and to help the people who are sick.

The Liberals had the chance to do it when they were in power and they did not do it. Now they are in opposition--and I have said this before--and it seems that when members are in opposition they believe all things are good, but when they get into government they must get a needle somewhere that makes them change their minds.

I listened to what the government said tonight. To use computer language, it was a cut-and-paste. It is the same language we have heard before. I have been here for nine years. Tonight's is the same language I have heard for nine years.

However, at the end of this, we have human beings. We have people who are left with no earnings. It is bad enough that the men or the women have cancer, but at the end of that, we have the children. We have families. We have kids who need to go to school.

We have the responsibility to help them, to give them an insurance plan, one that we can afford because we have a $50 billion surplus. Just this year, a $2 billion surplus went to the debt, and it came from the working people. It is a shame.

Honestly, I hope that the Conservative government members have a conscience. I hope they will think about this, change their minds, and give the workers what they deserve. I hope they will give the person who is sick and needs cancer treatment a longer period of EI.

Give it to them, I say. It will be good for society if we do it. It will be good for our working people. It will not affect the company involved because the person has been removed from the job already, by the doctor. That person needs to have those chemo treatments and cannot be on the job, but one thing this EI would do is help the family. It would help the kids. It would help that family to buy groceries, feed the kids and buy the clothes they need. This way, they would not have that worry. It would help people to heal.

That is why it is important. I am happy to see changes to the EI program being requested just one at a time. No one will be able to come and tell us that too many changes are being requested or that the bill is too voluminous.

If we say no to this change, we will have to say no to any change. If we cannot have compassion for someone who is sick with cancer, this means that no changes can be made to the EI program and that the government will just go on taking the money of workers and companies to pay off its own debts and achieve zero deficit. That is being done not only on the backs of workers, but on the backs of the sick as well.

That would be a terrible and totally inhumane thing to do. The government still has a chance to act. This evening, the Conservatives asked that this bill require a royal recommendation. I think they should come back before the House to ask that their point of order be withdrawn. That would become the most humane thing this Parliament has done.

Let us imagine that this bill is adopted. Just think what it would do for our workers who are ill. When SARS hit Toronto, the government turned around and got rid of the two-week waiting period, because it was Toronto. It seems that the rest of Canada does not count. I remember that event and I would never have voted against eliminating the two-week waiting period in Toronto. I understood that it was a good thing and I agreed with it.

Today, we are asking for a good thing that I agree with and I ask the government to change its mind and to vote in favour of Bill C-278 to assist those individuals suffering from long-term afflictions, to give them dignity and to help their families.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak in support of the private member's bill put forward by the member for Sydney—Victoria. The bill addresses the Employment Insurance Act, in particular paragraph 12(3)(c), which deals with sickness benefits.

The 2005 report from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Restoring Financial Governance and Accessibility in the Employment Insurance Program”, outlined a series of recommendations as a result of the extensive study. I would add that the all party committee put forward these recommendations and saw only one party issue a dissenting report. Unfortunately for Canadians, it was the Conservative Party.

Recommendation 27 of the committee's report called for the government to study the possibility of a 35 week extension to the existing 15 weeks in the program for individuals who suffer a prolonged and serious illness. This, therefore, highlighted the pressing need for this issue to be re-addressed and met with appropriate changes, changes that meet the challenges and realities of individuals battling chronic diseases or injury in Canada.

I commend the member for Sydney—Victoria for taking the initiative to push the committee's recommendation further and address the weaknesses in the EI program through this private member's bill.

Bill C-278 would extend the eligibility for individuals to obtain EI from 15 weeks to 50 weeks due to a “prescribed illness, injury or quarantine”.

The EI program was initially created to provide financial support for eligible Canadian workers who were temporarily unemployed and seeking employment. However, since 1971 the support program has grown to include short term sickness benefits.

Today EI assists eligible Canadians through some of their most difficult times. For many, the 15 week time provided is sufficient, and I am sure they are grateful that Canada is a society that provides such support. Unfortunately, however, this allotment of time does not meet the demands of all Canadians in the recovery process.

The recovery time for illnesses and injuries varies from case to case and individual to individual. According to the 2005 employment insurance report by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, approximately 32% of sickness beneficiaries in 2004-05 used the entire 15 weeks they were entitled to, a figure that has remained steady in recent years. This statistic suggests that, of the third of beneficiaries utilizing their maximum time, the 15 weeks of EI benefits is clearly insufficient.

A survey conducted in 2004 by the Canadian Breast Cancer Network asked whether 15 weeks of EI benefits was adequate to get women through treatment. The survey found that 75% of the 500 respondents claimed this was insufficient. In addition, the survey also found that 76% of respondents reported being off work for over 15 weeks.

Women enduring breast cancer treatment is merely one example of where this policy, in its present form, is insufficient. If an individual is pushed back into the workforce while he or she should be off work recovering, I can assure everyone that the process of recovery will certainly be prolonged.

For example, chemotherapy patients often endure treatments of anywhere from several months up to 10 months in a one time span and subsequently often must face an additional five week period of radiation treatment. To expect someone to work in order to provide for his or her family if not fit to do so is absolutely appalling.

To add to the imperfections of this section within the EI program, rural and northern residents remain at a tremendous disadvantage. This is felt particularly by the constituents in my riding of Churchill and indeed in most rural and northern areas in Canada.

The extension of 35 weeks for eligible Canadians struggling with such injuries and sickness is critical for individuals and families throughout our great country.

Bill C-278 would sufficiently address, for those Canadians suffering with chronic disease and severe injuries and who require the support, as has been indicated through the 2005 report recommendations, a critical and necessary means of supporting themselves and their families and would contribute to the well-being of this country. I encourage all members of the House to support this necessary and timely bill.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-278, a proposal to extend EI sickness benefits.

Bill C-278 speaks to a common belief that all members of the House have and, indeed, all Canadians share, a belief that Canadian workers should be treated with fairness and compassion, especially when they are ill and unable to work,and that they receive all the benefits to which they are entitled.

The bill in that spirit proposes an extension of the sickness benefits paid under EI from the current 15 weeks to a maximum of a 50 week period, a potential increase of 35 weeks.

While the duration of the EI sickness benefits is an important issue that warrants examination, the reality remains that we need to learn a lot more about the impact and labour market implications of implementing such a proposal.

As a starting point, what do we know about the situation? EI sickness benefits are designed as a short term income replacement measure intended to complement the range of other supports that are available for longer term illnesses and disability, including benefits offered through employer sponsored group insurance plans, private coverage held by individuals and long term disability benefits available under the Canada pension plan.

We know that about 300,000 individuals claimed sickness benefits under EI last year. Of those 300,000, about one-third or some 100,000 claimed the 15 week maximum benefit period. We also know that the average claim was for 9.5 weeks.

More recently, we have also learned that the 9.5 week average claim period under the existing EI compares closely with the findings of a new Statistics Canada study on workplace absenteeism due to sickness or disability. The results of that study can be found in the April 2006 issue of “Perspectives on Labour and Income”, a publication that is identified as a comprehensive journal on labour and income from Statistics Canada.

This new information shows that since 1993 the average duration of long term workplace absences for personal illness or disability has remained steady at around 10 weeks, very close to the EI experience of an average claim of 9.5 weeks.

The Statistics Canada report offers some other interesting insights as well. For example, the study indicates that factors like age, health, unionization, pay and job security can all have an influence on workplace absenteeism due to illness.

Age is a significant variable. Among employees age 45 or older, 4.6% had taken long term illness leave. This made older workers significantly more likely, 1.5 times more likely, to be on illness leave as compared with those under 35, even after controlling for health and disability factors.

Demographic information like this can be very useful, especially in looking at the supports available for persons who may require more than 15 weeks away from work due to illness or injury.

What things do we need to know more about? Before endorsing the modifications proposed in Bill C-278, we need to have a more comprehensive understanding of the broader implications of extending benefits under EI for both government and the private sector.

To begin with, the idea of extending EI sickness benefits raises a number of considerations related to cost and the potential impact on employees and employers in the labour market. For example, how would this affect coverage from private financial services companies who offer insurance against income loss because of sickness or disability, particularly those providing insurance that complements EI?

Furthermore, we need to know more about the potential cost of extending the EI benefit period. Under the existing program, the maximum benefit is $413 per week. The average claim last year was $2,700, for a total cost of over $810 million for the program for one year.

Extending the benefit period could have a significant impact on that cost. Would it be double the $810 million or triple? We do not know because we do not have sufficient research to tell us what those exact costs might be.

Consequently, it would not be a prudent course of action to give a blanket endorsement to the proposals in Bill C-278 without having the ability to adequately measure its potential cost.

Presently, as I have suggested during the course of my remarks, we lack the information and analysis needed to properly evaluate the potential effects of extending EI sickness benefits. Therefore, I believe it would be premature to declare either opposition or support for the proposals contained in Bill C-278.

However, that does not preclude support for further examination of such. Moreover, I would like to assure the member for Sydney—Victoria and all Canadians that Canada's new government is committed to ensuring that the EI program continues to serve Canadians in an effective and timely manner.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

When this bill comes back for consideration in the House there will be five minutes left for the hon. member for Peterborough to complete his remarks.

It being 6:20 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:20 p.m.)

The House resumed from October 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine), be now read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak on this bill to amend the Employment Insurance Act with respect to benefits for illness, injury or quarantine. The bill was put before this House by the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria under private members' business.

In summary, this bill extends the period for which benefits for illness, injury or quarantine may be paid from 15 weeks to 50 weeks. I want to commend the member for his bill, which humanizes the EI program and takes into account the needs of those whose illness lasts longer than the prescribed period of 15 weeks.

I cannot help, however, but express surprise, surprise and joy, over the fact that such a bill was introduced by the member for Sydney—Victoria, when it is a well-known fact that, in May of 2005, at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Liberals, who were in government at the time, opposed a motion of that committee which was relatively similar to what the member is proposing today.

The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria was asked to explain this about face. I must admit that I find the hon. member's explanation for this somewhat amusing. Truly, his words should be quoted. However I also find his comments reassuring. It goes to show there is always hope. It is always possible, when faced with an obvious injustice, that reason and common sense will prevail.

Let us come back to the comments by the hon. member who said the following in response to his about face and that of the Liberals, “The reality is that our society is changing. At one time people who got cancer died. Now they get cancer and they come back to society and they are also working.”

Between the position of the Liberals forming the government in May 2005 and their position today, in November 2006, in the span of a year and a half, I would say that the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria, once in opposition, opened his heart and mind to understand the situation of workers in difficult situations following a prolonged illness, despite their desire to go back to work.

To the Bloc Québécois it is clear. Our party always strived to propose improvements to the employment insurance program and changes we deem necessary. We have always been in favour of substantial improvements to the employment insurance program.

In fact, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle, from the Bloc Québécois, introduced, in May 2006, Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system). This bill received support from the House in October to be referred for consideration by the standing committee.

We are confident that all the opposition parties will support Bill C-269 and we strongly encourage the Conservative minority government to support it as well.

The Bloc Québécois also introduced, in October, Bill C-344, sponsored by my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, entitled An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting).

Previously there was Bill C-280 from the hon. member for Manicouagan, on creating an independent employment insurance fund. It was passed at second reading on April 13, 2005. Unfortunately, there was no vote at third reading.

In November 2004, my colleague, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, introduced her Bill C-278, a bill that proposed amendments to the employment insurance program.

Thus the House has paid particular attention to employment insurance in the last year is thanks in part to the efforts of the Bloc Québécois.

With regard to the bill before us, without getting into the actuarial and statistical details, it must be understood that it would help first and foremost workers suffering from the most serious illnesses, the oldest workers and mostly women.

I wonder how can anyone be opposed to that. I am convinced though that the Conservatives will find a way. Claims for sickness benefits have decreased among young people aged 15 to 24 and among workers aged 25 to 44 while they have increased among workers aged 45 to 54 and among older workers aged 55 and over.

Also, during the reference period, claims for sickness benefits decreased among men and increased among women. Even though the proportion of women who filed claims for sickness benefits remained relatively stable in 2004-05, women continued to file the majority of claims for this type of benefits, with 59%.

The last monitoring and assessment report of the Canada Employment Insurance Commission stated, and I quote:

About 32% of sickness beneficiaries in 2004/05 used the entire 15 weeks of benefits to which they were entitled. This proportion has been relatively stable in recent years, suggesting that for some types of claimants or illnesses, 15 weeks of EI benefits may not be sufficient.

I may have already mentioned that I was trained as a social worker. During my professional career, I often had to deal with workers who had left their job, because they were sick. Take cancer, a disease that is really wreaking havoc these days. One Canadian in three may be struck by cancer. A person who undergoes chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatments over a number of long weeks goes through a painful experience that leaves him exhausted for a period longer than the 15 weeks covered by employment insurance.

In other words, the 15 weeks currently provided under the employment insurance program are not enough to ensure a full recovery for the person who gets these treatments and who manages to get cured. We often talk about these people, but we should not forget that caregivers—and the bill may be silent on this—who support cancer patients, because they are spouses, children or family members, also get exhausted in the process. Unfortunately, these caregivers must, at the end of the process, leave their job, for reasons of sickness and exhaustion, because they supported that relative or friend throughout his battle with cancer.

I am asking our governments to also reflect on the situation of caregivers who, in my opinion, are not getting much support from them.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois intends to support this bill, which reminds us of the importance of reforming the employment insurance program. I wish to point out that Bill C-269, sponsored by the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle, is more complete than that of the Liberals, which still does not propose an in-depth reform of a program that is ill-suited and unavailable to over 50% of those who should be covered by it.

This is why we hope that parliamentarians in this House will support real improvements, such as those presented in Bill C-269.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak about Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine), and to continue the debate on this bill.

This bill will allow people who claim sickness benefits under the employment insurance program to receive benefits for a maximum of 50 weeks instead of 15 weeks, as the program currently provides.

I say that the bill will “allow” claimants to receive benefits, because they will not necessarily use the full 50 weeks, but will have access to benefits for a longer period.

The 2005 report on employment insurance by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development indicates that roughly 32% of sickness benefits claimants in 2004-05 received benefits for 15 weeks. According to a survey, 75% of the 500 respondents stated that this period was not long enough. In addition, 76% of the respondents said they had missed more than 15 weeks of work.

Clearly, there is a real need to amend the Employment Insurance Act. But let us turn our attention back to the bill.

This bill is for the men and women, the workers who have been diagnosed with cancer or a serious illness, illnesses that may require medical treatment that lasts longer than the 15 weeks provided for in the Employment Insurance Act. We also have to consider recovery time, which is just as important and necessary to successful treatment.

Imagine being diagnosed with cancer and having to undergo treatment to beat the cancer and increase your chances of survival. Imagine having to choose between getting better and going to work. The last thing anyone would want to worry about is money and keeping a job. Regaining health becomes the only goal. Fighting the disease is the priority.

Those are the people for whom this bill was drafted and introduced in this House.

Why should a family worry about its finances when the mother is seriously ill? It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do would be to try to ease the family's suffering. This bill gives us the power to do that.

This bill is intended for future mothers and pregnant women whose health, or whose baby's health, is at risk and therefore must stop all activity during their pregnancy. At present, these women who use all their sick leave in such situations are left with a shorter maternity leave and forced to return to work earlier than planned.

When the Liberal government extended maternity leave to one year, it was absolutely convinced of the importance of this year of leave. We of the NDP are just as convinced. For the best possible development, a newborn baby needs to form a strong emotional bond with his or her mother. This bond is formed over time and with the mother's presence.

What could be more painful for a mother than to have to return to work after only a few months spent with her newborn? This bill will allow these women to stay at home longer and take advantage of their full maternity leave with their baby. This is good news to the NDP.

This bill is also intended for workers who burn out at work. Burnout affects a vast majority of Canadians. Rest and reducing stress levels are two important remedies. People who must return to work after just 15 weeks of sick leave do not have the opportunity to recuperate and get back on their feet. Burnout symptoms often re-emerge, and the changes of getting over them are slim.

In 2005, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities tabled the report Restoring Financial Governance and Accessibility in the Employment Insurance Program. This report contained 28 recommendations, including Recommendation 27 which reads:

The Committee recommends that the government study the possibility of extending sickness benefits by 35 weeks for those who suffer from a prolonged and serious illness.

The Liberal government at the time did not consider this recommendation and never took the necessary steps to implement it. As for the Conservative members, they did not support the report but they did support this recommendation.

The NDP is pleased to note that the Liberal Party has changed its mind and is tabling a bill on this matter in this House. I can only hope that the Conservative government will support this bill given that it supported this recommendation when the report was studied.

Today we are talking about health—the physical and mental health of Canadians. What is more precious than health? As parliamentarians we must adopt the best measures to ensure the quality of life of our citizens.

The NDP supports this bill and will vote in favour of Bill C-278 to enhance the dignity of the people, the well-being of citizens, to provide relief to families and to support the sick in their struggle.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak today in support of Bill C-278, and to thank my colleague from Sydney—Victoria for drafting and introducing the bill.

In summary, it calls for the extension of EI benefits to those who are suffering from a prolonged illness, injury or quarantine, from 15 weeks currently, to 50 weeks. This is also consistent with the 2005 subcommittee report on EI reform that made 28 recommendations, supported by the Conservatives, and, of course, this was one of them.

It is a question of compassion and of of common sense. It would provide an innovative and cost effective solution to a problem that many of my constituents have faced, continue to face and will face again and again if we do not provide the much needed help.

Many people in my riding of Labrador have no supplemental private health coverage to assist during a catastrophic illness and to help assist them and their families through the illness. This is especially the case for seasonal workers and those in the fishery, and many throughout Labrador.

With or without such coverage, treatment for catastrophic and long term illnesses, such as cancer, which is never easy under the best of circumstances, is even more difficult for people in rural, northern and remote areas of our country, and Labrador is one of those places.

The health care infrastructure and expertise simply does not exist in many areas of Labrador. This means that people must travel or even relocate to a larger centre just to get the treatment they need, treatment that people in other areas of Canada take for granted.

It was very depressing to hear, in a report from the Rural Physicians of Canada, that people in rural areas have a shorter life expectancy than those in urban centres.

I would like to talk for a minute about some of the hardships that people in my riding face. I was particularly struck and saddened by an e-mail I received from a lady in the small community of Cartwright. She writes that she spends nearly 60% of her time raising money to help people travel for long term illness and care. She goes from door to door asking for money. She holds raffles and raises money through ticket sales. She does all of types of things just to help people who are in long term care to receive the basics.

Our society should not be that way. When it comes to our health and what is important for us and our families, medical care is one of those things that we should not need to debate but we do, which is why I want to thank the member again for introducing this bill. It is something we not only want but it is something we need.

Despite the economic conditions in the local area of Cartwright, which I just talked about, people do give and they give generously. They give what they can as often as they can but the problem is only getting worse, especially as the population ages.

I will talk about another example. A friend of mine, who lives in the little community of Williams Harbour, where I am originally from, on the south coast of Labrador, had a very serious illness in January of this past year and only got out of the hospital in June. This not only affected him but it also affected his wife who had to travel thousands of miles with him so he could receive the care he required.

After 15 weeks, neither of them can receive EI. He cannot get a note from his doctor to go back to work as he is still recovering. This particular person and his wife have been left without any income whatsoever. Basically, they will need to resort to social assistance. Social assistance is not where they want to go.

The EI fund, with all of the dollars that exist in it, can provide much needed help for individuals like those in Williams Harbour and throughout other communities in Labrador. This bill would go a long way toward helping people who find themselves in this circumstance.

In fact, HRSD's own internal research has shown that the existing 15 week illness and injury benefit is likely not enough. One-third of all recipients use up the entire period before their treatment or recuperation is complete. Cancer treatment, of course, is the classic example, but there are other illnesses and injuries that can require long periods of treatment, therapy or recuperation for many weeks or even months.

This bill is aimed at meeting the needs of people in this situation and treating them with compassion. It will also help relieve the terrible financial burden on families and communities when a family member, neighbour or friend is faced with illness or injury. It will help those who do not otherwise have access to another government income support program or to private insurance benefits.

This bill will provide a safety net to people who find themselves in need under the worst possible circumstances. It will prevent many people from falling through the cracks. It will strengthen families and communities.

That last statement is a slogan often touted by the Conservative government. Now I would like to see the Conservatives put some action behind their words and vote for this bill. Yet, if this bill goes through, it would do so at a minimal cost, because even with an extension of illness or injury benefits from 15 to 50 weeks, the cost will be only .02% of the existing EI surplus.

I think that we as Canadians can afford that compassion. Labradorians need it and deserve it. The government can afford it. The government should vote for the bill as well.

For all these reasons, I am pleased to pledge my support for Bill C-278. I again thank and congratulate my colleague from Cape Breton for advancing this important cause through this legislation.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to take part in private members' business in the House. It is usually about something that tugs at the heartstrings and is near and dear to the people putting the bill forward.

Of course they look for all party support to try to put through their piece of legislation, but unfortunately over the history of this House, although I cannot remember the percentage off the top of my head, the number of bills that actually get royal assent and move on to become part of the social fabric of this country is minuscule. I am very concerned that a bill like this will actually face that same fate.

Having said that, that is as kind as I can be to this bill. The member for Sydney—Victoria sat on the government side for almost 10 years. His government was in power for 13 years and did nothing to address this type of situation, absolutely nothing. Somewhere on the way to the ballot box, I guess, those members had an epiphany and decided that maybe they should do some different things with the EI fund as opposed to the political posturing and partisanship that they displayed on that fund over the years.

The biggest example of that is what the former prime minister did as finance minister. The Liberals talk about the EI surplus being there and that somehow this bill means only .02% of that surplus, but there is no surplus, because the former finance minister scooped $42 billion. He took it and played with it to juggle his numbers to make his books look balanced. There is no surplus.

As for any moneys like this that are dedicated to a fund like EI, it is basically a tax on jobs. Everybody agrees on that. The higher the EI premiums, the more that affects the job situation across Canada. We have a very volatile job market at this point. My part of the country is very fortunate in that anybody who wants a job can have one.

The Saskatchewan government is always complaining bitterly about Alberta not having a proper minimum wage standard. Saskatchewan has just raised its minimum wage to $7.25 now, I think, and from my latest perusal of Alberta the minimum wage is $14 an hour. That is the starting wage at the counter at Tim Hortons. Things are going very well.

Again, the EI premiums are rolling in because of those increased paycheques for folks, but my biggest concern in regard to a bill such as this is the unintended consequence of who actually pays into that fund and how much extra it is going to cost to cover off this type of thing.

As a self-employed person in my former life, I paid the maximum into EI three times in a year, and I always got it back as an employee of my own companies, but I never got back the company portion, the 1.4%, so I was subsidizing someone else.

I certainly would not ever buy into this type of a grandiose scheme, in that it is not necessarily required in this way. I am sure I am supporting this bill to the same degree that the members opposite who are heckling did when they were on the government side. In fact, I have seen them do it, and we can certainly go back to Hansard and pull that up for them. What hypocrisy.

Statistics prove this. I heard the member for British Columbia Southern Interior talk about some statistics he had, but Statistics Canada itself says that nine and one-half weeks was the maximum claimed for medical reasons by 70% of the claimants, if I have those numbers correct. Certainly there are people who fall through the cracks. I get the same calls and they do tug at your heartstrings, but there are other venues.

The biggest concern I have when the members opposite talk about cancer patients, and I grieve for them, because I have had cancer patients in my own family, is that it speaks to the perverted view that the former federal government had about what was called the Canada Health Act. There were five pillars in the Health Act and the only one the government ever got mired in and was concerned about was the public administration, which is who gets to hand out the money and take credit for it.

If we are really concerned about cancer patients and other patients who face the untimeliness of treatment, we have to go to one of the other pillars of the Health Act: the portability. The member who spoke before me talked about somebody having to go 1,000 miles to get treatment. That is supposed to be covered under portability in the Canada Health Act. People go where medical treatment is available. It is accessibility: if people cannot get treatment in their own province, they go where they need to, and the provincial government picks up the tab. That is how this is supposed to work.

It is about comprehensiveness. If some of these new leading edge treatments are not available other than thousands of miles away, patients are allowed, under the Canada Health Act, to go there. Then there is the timeliness, of course, with people talking about waiting weeks before treatment begins. I sympathize. I know that this is what is happening out there.

It is because of the political games and gamesmanship by that same former government that created problems that we are now trying to address by twisting other government programs to cover off the mistakes of the past. We must get back to fundamentals and address the Canada Health Act in that way.

There are credits under Revenue Canada, CCRA, for travel associated with seeking health care. They are there. It is unfortunate that one has to spend the money to get the money back and it comes off the taxes and so on. Certainly, there are people who fall through the cracks. However, this is not the way to address it.

It is important that we discuss these types of things, but we have to realize that EI was always based and founded on the idea that it is a temporary measure. We do have extensions of the EI situation, for example, the child bearing 50 week maternity benefits and so on that last up to a year. The member from B.C. southern interior was somehow alluding to the fact that this would be added on top of that, in the way I interpreted his comments, and I do not see that happening.

There still is not the take up on the actual extra months going to a year that often at this point. The vast majority of people tend to want to get back to work as quickly as they can. It is fortunate for some and unfortunate for others, but this is not an add on to those maternity benefits.

There are certainly many more longer term illnesses out there and that is unfortunate in this country, but there are things that are done like monitoring assessment report notes. I mentioned this earlier. The 70% of the total number of claimants, or about 200,000 people a year, do not use the full 15 weeks. There are some who do and some who do not, but stretching it to 50 weeks is three times more than what most people do not make use of now. We must look at the cost of what it would do to society. It would fall to workers and employers who pay 1.4 or 1.5 times to cover this off. The problem is that this would be a killer of jobs. Short term, we might have a little bit of gain. Long term, it is going to start to backlash and fall back on us.

The Canadian Breast Cancer Network referenced a Canada Employment Insurance Commission report which clearly stated:

The analysis indicates that, on average, claimants collected 9.6 weeks or 64% of the maximum entitlement. In addition, one-third of sickness beneficiaries collected the maximum 15 weeks of benefits. Overall, these results indicate that the 15 weeks of sickness benefits provided by the EI program is meeting the needs of most claimants.

As I said before, there are always those who slip through the cracks, but the system seems to be working fairly well. It would be a perversion of that system to multiply it by three when 70% are only using two-thirds of what is out there already.

The administration of EI itself would also be greatly affected by such a change. At the present time EI sickness benefits are simply and quickly processed, that could be argued, based on medical certificates. That is for a 15 week period. Things change after the 15 weeks. How many times would people have to go back to the doctor to keep qualifying for the full 50? We already have an overloaded, overworked health system. When we start sending people back through the system multiple times to maintain that 50 weeks, I think those again would be unintended consequences.

If the duration and cost of these benefits were increased, the relatively quick response now available might suffer. I think that is true. We tend to bog down in administration in this business.

I find it hypocritical that the members opposite would bring this forward and speak out of both sides of their mouths as though the last 10 to 13 years never happened. My heart goes out to people caught, but for the vast majority this works for them. I could never support this type of perversion of the situation as I see here.

There is always the fallback on to CPP once EI funds run out. Certainly, it takes time to make that jump, but if people are proactive and get their paper work in and so on, it does pay back retroactively up to nine months if it is needed. Therefore, there are other avenues out there without totally destroying and again going after the EI fund that unfortunately does not have the substance to it that it once did because of what the previous government did when it scooped it.

In conclusion, when we look at the factors to be considered, much as we are sympathetic to those forced to be absent from work because of illness, we must ensure that the approach we follow is rational and evidence based, not just politically expedient.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells and welcome the opportunity to join in today's debate on Bill C-278, which proposes to extend EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks.

While it would be premature to give Bill C-278 a blanket endorsement at this time, I join with the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria in acknowledging the need to examine the adequacy of the current provisions surrounding EI sickness benefits.

However, before proceeding with an examination restricted solely to EI sickness benefits, I believe it is important to frame this discussion in the larger context of the overall EI program.

The EI program helps to strengthen Canada's economic performance and protects our social foundations. It is one of several tools used by the Government of Canada to support a productive, efficient and mobile labour force.

Each year, through EI, the Government of Canada provides temporary financial assistance to unemployed Canadians while they look for work or upgrade their skills. Under the program, Canadians may obtain help through employment assistance services and access to programs they need for skills training. In 2003-04 alone EI income support provided $13.2 billion in benefits and helped 1.97 million unemployed Canadians to regain employment.

Canadians also look to the EI program to provide support at times of major transition in their lives. EI helps Canadians to bridge the gap when they are moving from one job to another, or when they are making the transition from skills upgrading back to the working world.

The EI program also provides temporary financial assistance for Canadians who are pregnant or caring for a newborn or adopted child. It also assists those who need to care for a family member or loved one who is gravely ill and provides support for those who have their own short term illness that keeps them away from their job.

As for the performance of the EI program, the most recent employment insurance monitoring and assessment report shows that EI continues to serve Canadians in an effective manner. Evidence shows that access to the EI program has remained stable. Regular EI claims decreased by 6.7%, while regular benefits decreased by 6.3%. This was consistent with the economic growth experienced over the period. Also, the number of sickness benefits remained fairly stable at just over 294,000 new claims, an increase of only 0.1% over the previous year.

When we talk about sickness benefits, as mentioned earlier, the EI program currently provides for a 15 week sickness benefit. This is designed to provide temporary income replacement for individuals who are absent from their job due to short term illness, injury or quarantine. I add emphasis on the words “temporary” or “short term” in the preceding statement.

It is important to underline that the current 15 week duration of sickness benefits was determined following extensive research and analysis. Factors considered in setting the 15 week number included an examination of the availability of sickness benefits in Canada's private sector, comparisons to the time allotted in other countries and discussions with representatives of the medical profession.

Taking all of this into consideration, the design of Canada's EI sickness benefit, while not sufficient to cover every situation, does cover the majority.

An objective evaluation of the existing data would strongly support such an assertion. For instance, the previously referenced monitoring and assessment report noted that the average length of time for sickness benefits in 2004-05 remained stable at 9.5 weeks. Likewise, a recent Statistics Canada study reported that the average work absence owing to illness or disability remained constant at 10 weeks for the past 13 years.

When reviewed in this context, one would be hard pressed to objectively argue that the 15 week provision for EI sickness benefit is not meeting the program's objective for providing temporary income support to workers when they are ill. In addition, it is interesting to note that the party of the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria held a similar view in government not long ago.

The former Liberal government, responding to a report from a parliamentary committee in May 2005, declared that:

--for the majority of workers who turn to EI when they are unable to work due to illness or injury, 15 weeks is meeting the objective of providing temporary income support.

What is more, the former Liberal government's response also indicated:

In the event a worker's illness or injury extends beyond that period of time, long-term income protection may be available through the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and other employment related benefits, if applicable.

Indeed, some situations may be covered by other programs or supports that are available. For example, CPP offers coverage for long term disability and many employers provide their employees with insurance coverage purchased from the private sector.

Though it is not chiselled in stone, nevertheless, EI is not a program impervious to change. It evolves in response to changes in our economy, labour markets and the needs of workers. In fact, recently a number of changes have been made to make the EI program more responsive.

For example, Canada's new government announced in June this year an extended EI benefit pilot project. It provides access to five additional weeks of benefit to EI claimants in high unemployment regions, up to a maximum of 45 weeks. In addition, we expanded the eligibility criteria for the compassionate care benefit so a broader range of EI eligible workers could claim the benefit while they cared for a family member or a loved one.

The performance of the EI program is carefully assessed on an ongoing basis with a view to determining if additional changes are warranted. I stress the words “carefully assessed”. As commendable as it would seem, a change to the EI program on the magnitude as proposed in Bill C-278 cannot be given a blanket endorsement without a clearly defined rationale and without further examination.

There are questions that remain unanswered. What, for example, would be the approximate cost or other impacts of such a change? What would be the advice of the medical profession? What is now the practice in Canada's private sector? What has been the experience in other countries that include sickness benefits in their employment insurance systems? All these considerations deserve a thorough examination prior to moving forward.

Plainly much more information is needed to understand the consequences and costs of increasing the duration of the EI sickness benefit.

While it can be acknowledged that the current 15 weeks provision may not be sufficient in selected cases, we must also recognize that blanket support for Bill C-278 at the present, without the required data to make an informed decision, would be premature. However, this does not preclude further examination on the implications of extending EI sickness benefits, ideally within and outside the confines of Bill C-278.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria, the sponsor of Bill C-278, I would like to give fair warning to members that once he speaks, no one else can speak on this issue.

The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria for a five minute right of reply.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I close out the second reading debate on Bill C-278, I want to take this opportunity to thank all members of this House who have contributed to this debate. I know my colleagues in the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc have been particularly supportive of the bill. I thank the respective critics from those parties for their ongoing support.

I also listened with great interest to the comments from the government benches. Recognizing I only have a few minutes here today, I would like to touch briefly on a few points raised in this debate by the members across the floor.

The first point pertains to the argument that to raise EI benefits from 15 to 50 weeks could cause problems for people who have employer sponsored insured plans or private coverage. I want to be clear that my bill is not intended for people who have such coverage. My bill is intended for people who do not have coverage. Bill C-278 seeks to address the people who have no such private or corporate plans that they can access.

These people find themselves, after 15 weeks, without any money for rent, heat and groceries. This needs to be rectified. We need to have programming in place so these people can focus on getting better and not need to worry about the basic needs of keeping warm and being fed.

Another argument put forward by the new government relating to CPP long term disability benefits was that CPP was a complementary program that already serves the objectives of my bill. The rationale here, of course, is that a person can access EI sickness benefits for 15 weeks and if they have a longer term disability then they can go on CPP. In theory this sounds sensible but, regrettably, in practice it is often not the case.

The real life fact is that people are routinely denied CPP disability because they do not meet the stringent criteria. For an example of this I would encourage members on the government's benches to speak to one of their own, the Conservative member of Parliament from Saskatoon. In an early 2005 article that appeared in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, that member told the story of one of his constituents who was battling cancer but was being denied long term CPP. The member and his constituent called for EI changes to address this issue, including extending the number of weeks for sickness benefits.

What is more, even if a person is accepted for CPP long term disability, the process for applying for the program is too long. In fact, it can take over four to seven months. The EI sickness benefits are long exhausted before the CPP payments start.

In a 1999 evaluation of the CPP program, the authors commented on this issue and pointed to other countries, such as Germany and Sweden, which the hon. member mentioned. Those countries have programs similar to our EI sickness benefits but they provide support for one whole year. The program is there to bridge the gap. However, that is not why CPP is there. CPP is for long term disability. The extension of this benefit would get people through the crunch and help them to again become productive members in our society. That is what the bill is all about.

I know all of us here have people coming to our constituency offices regularly looking for an extension to their EI sickness benefits. If all members were to check with their offices I think they would see that this is happening with increased regularity. Because of the regularity of this happening at my office in Cape Breton, I felt there was a need to find a solution, which is the solution in Bill C-278.

Over the past several months I have been fortunate to have prestigious organizations, noted individuals and others join me in this initiative. This includes the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Lung Association. I have letters from social workers at the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto and the Canadian Auto Workers.

I could go on and on but the reality is that we need this bill and I thank all members for joining me in support of this bill. The bill shows compassion and members who vote against the bill shows they are heartless.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to the order made earlier today the division stands deferred until Tuesday, December 5, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

It being 2:17 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:17 p.m.)

The House resumed from November 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, 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.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #91

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)