Bill C-288 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (special benefits)

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend the maximum period for which benefits for illness, injury or quarantine may be paid from 15 weeks to 50 weeks.

Employment Insurance

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to stand up and speak once again on behalf of my constituents.

I would like to thank the member for Sydney—Victoria for bringing this motion before the House. I know that his heart is in the right place when I read the motion, but I have to express my frustration and indeed that of the New Democratic Party at another half measure by this Liberal government. When it comes to the issue of employment insurance sickness benefits, this is not a new issue. This has been debated for several years over several parliaments, and we know that enacting such a measure in legislation would have a very real and tangible benefit for some of the most vulnerable Canadians. That is simply a fact.

For the benefit of my constituents back home, I am going to take some time to read the motion. Motion No. 201 reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities should examine the possibility and practicality of extending the maximum number of weeks of Employment Insurance sick benefits for those with long term illnesses; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than six months from the adoption of this motion.

Once again, even though the member for Sydney—Victoria has the right idea with this motion, instead of a practical action from the Liberal government, we are again left with a motion for study, which is problematic in two elements. The Liberals have had a majority government and are now three and a half years into this 42nd Parliament. They have had the time to enact this measure. They have the numbers and the votes necessary to pass such a measure in legislation.

However, the fact is that Motion No. 201 is coming before us in its final hour of debate right now, in this 42nd Parliament, which is rapidly running out of runway. Therefore, there is no realistic chance for the standing committee to do the proper study and have an adequate amount of time to report its findings back to the House.

I want to highlight why this is so important. We know that employment insurance sickness benefits currently have a maximum payable of 15 weeks. We also know that about four out of 10 applicants are maxing out those benefits. This is problematic, because the next federal benefits that could conceivably come into play if one's illness is of quite a long duration is CPP disability. However, with CPP disability, one has to meet two requirements: One's physical or mental disability or illness has to be severe, and it has to be prolonged. One has to hit those two things.

From my days working as a caseworker and intervening on behalf of constituents, I saw that “prolonged” usually means a year or more. What I saw when I was working as a constituency assistant, and indeed what my office continues to see, is that we have constituents who have an illness that may last in the range of 30 weeks or so. They max out on 15 weeks of sickness benefits, but they do not have the timeline necessary to go on to the next step.

This causes an incredible amount of stress and frustration on the part of those who are dealing with health issues, which we know is not good for their recovery. It is very problematic.

I got into politics because I was sick and tired of sitting across the table when I was doing casework, seeing people who were at their wits' end because either their benefits had run out or they could not find enough money to pay the rent or put good food on the table. I could link a lot of those issues straight back to this place and the policies and legislation enacted here in the House of Commons, or the lack thereof. If only Motion No. 201 had been a private member's bill, we could actually have done something.

We most certainly support extending EI benefits. If the member for Sydney—Victoria wants a template, he needs to look no further than my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam, who in this 42nd Parliament has Bill C-288 at first reading. It would amend the Employment Insurance Act to provide for up to 50 weeks of benefits for persons suffering from health issues.

Yes, that will probably add some cost, but the thing about health issues is that no one knows when they are going to get sick. No one knows when these kinds of health problems can arise, but boy, do people appreciate the safety nets that are there when they need them.

Not everyone is going to need the 50 weeks, but they would have the peace of mind of knowing that they could potentially go up to 50 weeks if they needed to. Of course, along the way they would need to submit the proper medical documentation to show that they were still eligible .

This is not just in this Parliament. We have Bill C-288 here in the 42nd Parliament, but my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam had a similar bill in the previous Parliament, the 41st.

Former member of parliament Dawn Black, of the NDP, had it in the 40th Parliament and in the 39th Parliament. There are numerous examples, and they are not only from New Democrats. I believe there were a number of Liberal and Bloc Québécois members of Parliament who all tackled this issue. There was a recent petition by Marie-Hélène Dubé that collected 600,000 signatures, so the will is there. The obvious sense of it is there, and we have numerous examples in previous Parliaments.

Again, all we have before us is a motion to direct this to a committee for further study, yet the government has all the tools at its disposal and a commanding presence in the legislature, and I would argue that amending this part of the EI Act is it is probably the lowest of the low-hanging fruit.

As I said in the beginning, think of the number of benefits we could extend to people and just do that one measure. Four out of 10 Canadians are already maxing it out.

I will be voting in favour of Motion No. 201, but I want it clearly understood that a golden opportunity was missed yet again, especially with a majority government, and I want to convey my frustration and that of my party to constituents back home.

They know I have been raising issues on employment insurance for quite some time. I have, as all MPs do, an active case file. There are constituents in my riding who are seeing their EI sickness benefits cut off at 15 weeks. Some of them have tried to go back to work, which has made them even sicker. When I see the stress and the strain of attempting to do that, I do not know why we have not taken the time to tackle this issue yet.

I want that frustration clearly underlined, and I certainly hope that the member for Sydney—Victoria and his colleagues are listening. We could have had this done, but we certainly do not have a lot of time left in this 42nd Parliament.

Again, I appreciate this time to rise in this place and give my thoughts on the matter.

With that, I will conclude.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to this motion this evening. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on Motion No. 201, which seeks to extend the EI benefits for those experiencing sickness and disability caused by sickness.

The motion proposes a valuable examination of a program that many Canadians rely on during very challenging times. As members of the House will know, the employment insurance program was initiated to offer temporary financial assistance to unemployed workers. It helps workers to bridge the financial gap between jobs and ensures that people are able to stand on their own two feet during seasons of transition or change.

One of the special benefits that the EI program provided was the sickness benefit, and it does still provide it. Those who are unable to work due to sickness or injury can turn to EI when their circumstances keep them from working. As it stands now, individuals unable to work because of sickness or injury who would otherwise be available to work could be eligible to receive a maximum of 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits. The purpose of this is to give people time to get better, making sure that they are able to restore their health so that they can go back to work healthy.

It makes sense to have a safety net in place for Canadians who are sick and injured. Even when we have not experienced long-term illness or injury ourselves, chances are we know someone, whether a family member, friend or co-worker, who has. Missing work as a result of situations like this can be taxing and take a personal toll. Beyond that, it can leave individuals in a financial lurch too. I have experienced sickness both in my family and in my circle of friendship.

I was recently reading a Global News report which said that half of all Canadians are $200 away from not being able to pay their bills. Part of what the motion proposes is to also eliminate the two-week waiting period for those experiencing sickness or injury. I think that is a tremendous measure. When I think of the statistic that half of Canadians are $200 away from not being able to pay their hydro bill or buy groceries or prescription drugs, that is a very sobering thought.

Illness and injury do not respect anyone. They can happen at any time. When something like that happens, I think we have to have measures in place that people can depend on to get them through that difficult time. We know that if people have to worry about their finances when they are sick, it adds to the sickness and injury. It actually decreases their chance for a speedier recovery. It adds that extra stress, which sometimes the body just cannot handle. This is precisely why EI programs exist: to help lessen the toll on our fellow citizens who are facing tough times.

As policy-makers, it is up to us to make sure that this system serves Canadians the way it was intended to and that it is sustainable for future generations of workers. This means finding exactly the right balance between the needs of employees and employers. It means ensuring responsible government management of the program today and also down the road.

In 2006, the member for Sydney—Victoria introduced Bill C-288, an act to amend the employment insurance act regarding benefits for illness, injury or quarantine. His legislation proposed to extend the maximum period for benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks. In 2011, a former member of the House introduced Bill C-291, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act regarding the waiting period and maximum special benefits. This legislation also proposed to extend the maximum duration of employment insurance for sickness to 50 weeks from 15 weeks, as well as to eliminate the requirement of the two-week waiting period prior to receiving sickness benefits.

It was during the more recent iteration, known as Bill C-291, that the Parliamentary Budget Officer took a look at what this new maximum would mean in terms of dollars. The PBO determined that the estimated cost would have been up to $1.1 billion for the year 2009-10. Broken down, there was about $200 million for the elimination of the two-week waiting period and around $900 million for the extension of benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks. This figure was a static cost estimate, and so potential behavioural responses to these changes were not factored in.

The PBO's report further noted that if the bill had been implemented in 2009-10, total sickness benefit payments would have been approximately 100% higher than they were at the time. As stated in the report, given the fact that the “Employment Insurance program is financed by the collection of EI premiums from employers and employees...any increase in EI expenditures would require an equivalent increase in EI premium insurance revenues.” This would be in order for the program to remain self-funding.

This is, of course, an important consideration for the long-term sustainability of the EI program that we must keep in mind as we proceed with this study.

In the June 2016 report of HUMA entitled “Exploring the Impact of Recent Changes to Employment Insurance and Ways to Improve Access to the Program”, recommendation number 7 states:

The Committee recommends that the federal government explore increasing the maximum number of weeks of employment insurance sickness benefits.

While the official opposition wrote a dissenting report to address some important concerns with the contents of the main report, the fact of the matter is that the key idea behind Motion No. 201 has been laid out previously. Several times parliamentarians have seen the need to address this issue in the EI program.

Sickness benefits cost the EI system $1.6 billion in 2017. We have also seen a trend since 2015 of a greater demand for sickness benefits.

The government noted in its response to the HUMA June 2016 report:

The EI sickness benefit is designed to provide temporary income support for short-term absences from the labour force due to illness, injury or quarantine. While the 15 weeks of benefits appear adequate for the majority of workers, some claimants do exhaust their sickness benefits and stakeholders often request an extension in the case of more serious illnesses. In 2014/2015, on average, claimants of the EI sickness benefit collected 10 weeks of benefits and 34.8% used all of the 15 weeks available to them. The EI sickness benefit complements a range of other supports that are available for workers with longer-term illnesses, 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 and provincial and territorial programs. Improvements to the sickness benefit including potential extension of the maximum duration would require careful consideration of the interactions with other supports, impacts on employers, and would be expected to have a significant cost implication, with resulting premium rate increases.

With these realities before us, there is ample reason to take stock of the situation and lay out recommendations for the best path forward. There are many moving parts when it comes to EI sickness benefits that we ought to take note of throughout our work.

I appreciate the work of the member for Sydney—Victoria for facilitating this conversation with this motion. We have certainly seen this issue considered in various forms over the past years, but when we are talking about a program that supports Canadians, it is important for all of us to be engaged in these discussions. I will be supporting this motion because this is a conversation worth having, recognizing that we must be responsible stewards of the EI program to make sure it continues to serve Canadians well now and into the future. Conservatives understand that when individuals are facing challenges like longer-term illness or injury, they need support.

On this side of the House, I know members are always open to exploring ways that government programming puts people first. That is why members of our Conservative caucus have been championing initiatives that focus on government being more compassionate and responsive to the needs of Canadians.

In our 2015 economic action plan, our previous Conservative government extended compassionate care for the care of terminally ill loved ones from six weeks to six months. These benefits, provided through the EI program, help support individuals temporarily away from work to care for a sick family member with a significant risk of death. Our party has always been committed to helping families receive the support they need as they care for loved ones, especially at end of life, and we backed that up with meaningful action.

Now in opposition, Conservatives continue to champion initiatives such as the opportunity for workers with disabilities act, introduced by the member for Carleton, to ensure that disabled Canadians never lose more in benefits and taxation than they gain as a result of work. Unfortunately, a majority of Liberal MPs voted against this bill before it was even studied.

The member for Calgary Shepard has brought forward Bill C-399 to improve access to the disability tax credit to help ensure that all Canadians living with a disability receive the benefits they deserve and are entitled to. I hope all members of this House will support that common-sense initiative as well.

The member for Banff—Airdrie brought forward Motion No. 110 to determine ways for government to be more sensitive to parents who have suffered the loss of an infant child and to improve the level of support for grieving parents. I was pleased to see this motion considered in-depth by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and I look forward to the committee's report.

These are examples that reflect the passion of our official opposition benches for putting people before government. It is why we are open to studying how we can better a key government program in a way that meets Canadians' needs. I hope all members here will agree that the conversation that Motion No. 201 proposes is one worth having.

I know that as opposition members we are always very sensitive about cost implications and further taxation. This could incur another payroll tax, but it could be one that is worth incurring.