Bill C-212 (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.

Employment Insurance Act

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the employment insurance program is antiquated and needs reform. So much has changed in the five decades since EI was imagined. For example, when EI was first brought into this country, it was built to support men as the breadwinner, a discriminatory concept that has perpetuated gender discrimination and the gender wage gap in the workforce since its inception.

Here are the stats. From 1972, when EI was first brought in, to the present, the labour force participation rate for women has almost doubled, rising from only 45% in 1972 to 85% today. This compares to a slight decline for men, from 95% participation rate to 92% now. The EI system is just another example of the systems in this country that were not built for equity and inclusion.

During the recent HUMA testimony around this bill, we heard from Madame Marie-Hélène Dubé, who has been running the “15 weeks is not enough” campaign for years. She battled cancer three times between 2003 and 2008, receiving only 15 weeks of benefits per year. This year, she went through the same nightmare yet again, still receiving only 15 weeks of support in a year when costs have skyrocketed. I raise my hands to Madame Dubé, who has continued to fight for better even during the most difficult of times. As Marie-Hélène testified, setting the benefit period of EI sickness benefit at 26 weeks would let down the people who need it the most.

That is exactly what the government did. It let people down and it needs to be corrected. Extending the benefit period from 26 weeks to 52 weeks would change everything when it comes to treatment and recovery from illness or injury, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer has demonstrated that it is a viable change. We can pay for this, and Canadians agree it is a socially acceptable measure. It is shameful that, despite support from Canadians, the government has failed to extend EI sickness benefits beyond 26 weeks.

Opposition parties, along with the NDP, must continue to advocate for Canadians who suffer from an illness or injury. That should not have to happen. We need to make sure they have access to necessary employment insurance during their time of need. The NDP supports Bill C-215 as it strives toward giving Canadians more protection when accessing these essential benefits. The NDP has tabled similar private member's bills in previous Parliaments, including in February 2020 when my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona tabled Bill C-212.

The NDP is focused on making sure that people can receive much-needed income while they are recovering from an injury or illness, and Bill C-215 provides more protection than what exists today. It allows workers the time they need to recover, something that is absolutely necessary, postpandemic specifically, as labour shortages in health care have delayed and prolonged access, diagnoses and treatments, and as the realities of long COVID are becoming better understood.

I want to go back to the failings of only having 26 weeks of sickness benefits for women and diverse genders. The need for greater EI benefits disproportionately affects them, whether it is in their capacity as single parents or the fact that there is a gender wage gap in this country that does not afford them the opportunity to save at the same rates.

In addition, I know personally that it is more difficult for women to get private sickness insurance because of the rates of breast cancer in this country. If there is a history of cancer in one's family, that risk profile is a consideration in the insurance company's assessment of allowing benefits. With one in eight women in this country being attacked by breast cancer, the chances of having no family history of it are decreasing by the day. This leaves women uninsured and unprotected from financial risks of an illness they have no control over, which is just another reason why gender inequities in the EI system need to be fixed. There are so many examples of where women were left out of the initial EI design.

Before I go on, this inspired me to go and take a look at the employment numbers from 1972 to 2022. While data from 1972 was not available on the Statistics Canada's website, data from 1976 was. I can tell members that women have driven the growth of this economy over the last 50 years.

We have had an increase of almost 10 million employees since 1972, the majority of them women, the participation rate going from 44% to 88%. The majority of new workers in our economy are women.

I want to point out, by how we classify workers, that the health care and social science assistance category has increased by 1.8 million, almost two million workers. It is shameful that it is one of the largest-growing areas of our economy and we waited this long for child care.

I will go back to Mouvement Action-Chômage de Montréal, which invited legislators to correct the inequity of the act toward women who had received maternity, or parental benefits or their equivalent from a provincial parental insurance plan, and the current ruling around injustices for six women who lost their jobs while on, or just after, parental leave and had their EI claims rejected because they had not worked the minimum number of hours needed to qualify for benefits.

To add insult to injury, the government continues to fight the Social Security Tribunal ruling that sections of the Employment Insurance Act violated women's constitutional rights to equality under the law. Standing here, I do not know how the government can argue that. Why do women continually have to fight the government for equity injustice?

I asked in committee about gender inequities and if the gender lens was being applied in the current budgeting considerations for the government's movement to expand from 15 weeks. This is what came back, “Regarding the PBO’s $1.9 billion estimated ongoing cost of an extension to EI sickness benefits from 15 to 52 weeks, the PBO’s formula and budgeting did not segment potential beneficiaries by gender.” The discriminatory analysis continues.

In addition, a set of data that came back from the 2021 “Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report“ showed that a gender difference continued to exist between men and women in relation to EI sickness benefits, yet when analyzing that data for post-claim follow-up, this was the disclaimer on the data that came back, “A breakdown of the findings above by gender is not available.” That is unacceptable. We exist, we are here and we are at work.

The New Democrats acknowledge that the 26 weeks is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. Extending the framework from 26 weeks to 52 weeks is what is needed to accurately capture the needs of all people, allowing them to receive the necessary benefits during the recovery period. The government needs to do the right thing and do better for Canadians.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that I rise in the House to say that I agree with the member for Lévis—Lotbinière, but it does happen. I will warn you, however, that I may not make it a habit.

I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for her earlier comments.

I believe that we can perhaps arrive at a consensus, even though it may not be unanimous, on the need to move forward with this bill. Many, if not all, political parties in the House have introduced a similar bill at some point in time. I believe that getting this consensus is the right thing to do to support those who are sick and need help and to ensure that the social safety net is effective and useful.

Many people have been calling for improved special sickness benefits for years. I would obviously be remiss if I failed to mention the labour movement, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, and community groups such as Mouvement Action‑Chômage, Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans‑emploi and the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses du Québec, which are all calling for these improvements to be made.

Like some of the other members who spoke, I, too, want to highlight the efforts of two exceptional women who have fought hard to ensure that these improvements are made to the EI system. One of them continues to carry on the fight. The first of these women is the late Émilie Sansfaçon, who unfortunately did not live to see these changes made to EI sickness benefits, but who worked hard to achieve them. The second is Marie‑Hélène Dubé, who has survived cancer three times and has worked very hard for 10 years with all parliamentarians and political parties to advance this cause. She managed to do something remarkable when she got nearly 620,000 signatures on a petition calling for these improvements to the EI system. That is an amazing feat.

This shows that people are aware of these issues and that they are concerned about them. They recognize that the current system is inadequate and needs to be improved. The Liberals say that they want to listen to the science, but let us listen to what doctors are telling us here. Let us listen to what studies are telling us and look at what people with serious illnesses have to deal with.

Bill C‑215 is very similar to NDP Bill C‑212, which my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona introduced in the previous Parliament. This bill was very much along the same lines as the one before us today.

Fifteen weeks of benefits is completely ridiculous. At one point, caregivers were entitled to more weeks of EI benefits than the person with the illness. The Liberals have taken action, but once again they have not done enough. Rather than increasing sickness benefits to 50 or 52 weeks, they increased them to just 26 weeks.

Why do things halfway, when we are being told that someone with cancer, for example, needs 50 or 52 weeks?

Recovery can take 35 to 40 weeks. The average is 41 weeks. Why not go ahead and make 50 or 52 weeks available? By what logic is the Liberal government telling sick people that they cannot collect benefits while they are sick or that they cannot keep collecting them until they make a full recovery? That is not very humane, it does not meet people's needs, and there is no reason for it at all.

We all agree that 26 weeks is better than 15, but why not go all the way?

I want this to be clear. I am sure we can all agree that sick people themselves do not decide that they need 50 weeks of sickness benefits. That is for doctors to decide. People need a doctor's note to claim special sickness benefits. That strict medical framework is already in place, and it is not up to individuals to choose to take an extra four weeks. That is up to the doctor.

I really encourage the Liberals to do the right thing and support Bill C-215 so we can finally resolve this issue once and for all. This has been dragging on for far too long.

If a royal recommendation or the support of two government ministers is required to move this forward, let us do it. I hope those on the Liberal benches will find enough political courage and common sense to do the right thing. It would be historic, and everyone would be delighted. I think everyone could then say that we worked together to get something done that will really help people who are suffering and who need this help.

As someone mentioned earlier, this is also the workers' own money. This is not public money that falls from the sky, but rather premiums paid by workers and employers to create this fund, which must serve the people.

Unemployment is already not a choice anyone makes. It is something that can happen to anyone. People are victims of it. Illness is also never an individual choice; people are victims of it. Individuals who find themselves in this extremely distressing double situation must have all the necessary supports.

As parliamentarians, as elected members and representatives of the people, the least we can do is adapt our programs to meet the needs of the people, especially those in need.

We have to take it further than that. The 26 weeks that will be granted are not enough and will not meet the needs of 75% of the people who are sick. I do not understand why the Liberals are stopping halfway like that.

I want to talk about the employment insurance system in general. We are almost desperate for major EI reform. It makes no sense that for years, the majority of workers who contribute have not been eligible for benefits because they did not have enough hours to qualify. The system is completely broken. It went off the rails over the years and urgently needs to be modernized.

The Liberals said change was coming, but they have been saying that for a long time about certain issues. Fortunately, sometimes the NDP pushes them to reach an agreement in order to speed things up so the work can actually get done.

EI for seasonal workers, the five‑week pilot project for seasonal gappers or for self‑employed workers, is a disaster. There is nothing in that program that meets people's needs.

There are more and more freelancers, self-employed workers and contract workers in the new economy and in our society. Not only are they not eligible for benefits, but they also cannot even contribute because they are both an employer and an employee. They are not covered by the system. Gig workers, self-employed workers and freelancers are left out.

I was going to talk about the COVID‑19 pandemic using the past tense, but we just learned that Quebec is officially in the sixth wave of the pandemic. Unfortunately, this means that we may still be in it for a little longer. This pandemic has shown that our social safety net is flawed, gutted and in shambles, and it is clear that it needs to be rebuilt.

At the federal level, EI is a very important tool to help individuals get back on their feet. Our health care system needs assistance as well. It needs better protection and more funding. It needs guarantees and standards to ensure that people are getting good care from the public sector. We must not allow privatization and money to dictate whether someone can access care.

If not for the much-talked-about CERB and its successor, the CRB, a whole bunch of self-employed workers, freelancers and contract workers would have been forced to declare bankruptcy. We succeeded with the CRB. We negotiated with the minority Liberal government to increase the benefit to $2,000 and to extend the program when people needed it. However, that was a temporary measure, much like putting a bandage on a broken leg.

It is now time to not only increase the duration of sickness benefits to 52 weeks for those who need it, but also overhaul the EI regime. It must be done.

Émilie Sansfaçon Act

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this bill. It actually looks a lot like my own private member's bill, Bill C-212, which effectively seeks to do the same thing.

It is in the spirit of an amendment that I tried to move to one of the government's most recent bills modifying the Employment Insurance Act for the purposes of the pandemic, where I sought to have the EI sickness benefit extended to 50 weeks. It is in the spirit of a motion that has already passed, not once but twice, in the House of Commons during this Parliament that calls for an extension of the EI sickness benefit to 50 weeks. Frankly, it is high time that this got done.

I have to say I have not found the government's response to this proposal compelling in the least. The previous intervention by the member for Winnipeg North, just two speakers ago, illustrated the inadequacy of the government's response. He talked about EI as a program meant to maintain an attachment to the workforce. That is true, but there already other EI benefits that can extend up to 50 weeks.

It makes no sense at all to say that, because somebody is sick, they should not be able to maintain an attachment to their job and go back to work after an adequate recovery period, and continue to receive some benefit during that whole period. I do not see how sickness is a good way to choose people who would not get the length of benefit that they might otherwise receive under a normal EI stream.

The member then talked about some other general features of EI that have been changed throughout the course of the pandemic, but did not really speak again to the issue of sickness benefits.

The question that the bill really puts to the fore, and rightly so, is for people who are sick, how are we going to do right by them. Even prior to the pandemic, there had been a campaign towards 50 weeks going on for far too long already, with governments that refuse to act and to implement a 50-week EI sickness benefit.

We knew, already, that in terms of typical recovery periods for diseases like cancer, 15 weeks is simply not enough. However, the pandemic has put this question into even sharper relief. COVID-19 has led to the development of a condition that some people are calling long COVID, post-COVID syndrome or COVID long-haulers. These are people who are seriously falling through the cracks.

They are falling through the cracks for a number of reasons. In some cases, it is that they contracted COVID before the robust testing regime was in place, so they do not have a formal diagnosis of COVID. In some cases, their workplace insurance plan for things like short-term disability does not recognize long COVID as a condition, so they cannot get coverage.

One of the programs that has been there for these folks in their time of need and as we learn more about this new condition that is afflicting them is the EI sickness benefit, but that is only for 15 weeks. We heard from people some time ago who were already at the expiration of their EI sick benefits and unable to access any other kind of insurance program.

Without naming names, out of concern for folks' privacy, I do want to read some excerpts of the stories that have been sent to me by people who are struggling with long COVID, who I think really make the case for why it is so important that we make our EI sickness benefit a much longer benefit.

One woman who wrote to me said:

My symptoms started on April 2, 2020. In the weeks and months that followed, I have suffered and continue to suffer with multiple symptoms that affect my ability to function on a daily basis. I used my short-term sick credits available through my employer until October 2020. At that point my long-term disability through a third party insurance company should have started, but my claim was denied. I am currently going through the appeal process, which could take many months. I am receiving EI sick benefits, but when those end I will have no income.

Another woman from Quebec says, “Please help. I got COVID in March 2020. I've been sick since. I'm coughing uncontrollably and because of the cough, I can't resume my job working on the phone or any other job. Even going to the store I get stared at. I just exhausted my EI sickness benefits and I have nothing else available to me. I'll be sick and homeless. Fifteen weeks is just not enough to recover. I want to work but my doctor said that I'll end up being fired because of this cough.”

Another woman writes, “I am emailing on behalf of my 25-year-old child. They contracted COVID-19 at work at the end of May 2020 and have not been able to work since. They were eligible for CERB and received it until the end of September. They have been receiving the EI benefit since then, but are becoming concerned about what will happen if they continue to be unable to work when their benefits run out.”

A woman from Ontario wrote, “My husband and I are both COVID long-haulers and are about to lose our home because of lack of government financial support. As a result of my insurance company denying my long-term disability claim, I've had to rely on employment insurance sickness benefits, but the 15 weeks of benefits to which I'm eligible are almost up and I'll soon find myself without any income whatsoever. Though I filed a lawsuit against my insurer, it could take up to two years for my case to be resolved.”

There are more, I am sorry to say. We have heard from so many people who really had no other resort in the pandemic than the EI sickness benefit. Despite the fact that there have been many changes made to the EI program on a very quick basis throughout the pandemic, as yet no changes have been made.

I know the government committed to extending the benefit to 26 weeks in the campaign, but those have not surfaced in any of the legislative changes over the past year. They finally appear in Bill C-30, but what I cannot understand is why the government would choose to go with only 26 weeks, when we have an excellent bill like the one before us today. We have clearly demonstrated the will of the House of Commons to support a 50-week benefit.

When I tried to amend a previous government bill, Bill C-24, to include a 50-week benefit, one of the arguments, which I did not find compelling, made by folks on the government side was that making changes to the software that undergirds the EI system was very difficult and it was not just a matter of putting in a number of weeks in the system. It is very complicated, according to them.

If this is supposed to be a once-in-a-generation change to the EI sickness benefit, it would be a tragedy if it ended up only being for 26 weeks. Future governments are going to make that same argument that we cannot expand the number of weeks because the software does not support it. If this is the moment to make that change, and the government is clearly signalling a willingness to make that change, even though it was not willing a couple of months ago on Bill C-24, then let us get it right the first time.

There is an expression on job sites that there is never enough time to do the job right the first time, but there is always enough time to redo it three times after. The problem with this is that we are not slapping up a storefront here. People are sick now and their EI sickness benefits have already expired. People with that benefit, on the cusp of expiring, are going to suffer while the government struggles to get this right. The way is clear. The House of Commons has already said categorically that it should be a 50-week benefit. We have had opportunities with amendments that I have moved previously. We have another opportunity with this bill today.

This has already taken too long. Let us get this right the first time and do right by all those people who are out there suffering, either with new conditions like long COVID, or with long-standing conditions who have struggled to get their health needs met during the pandemic because our hospitals have rightly been focused on helping all those whose lives have been jeopardized by COVID-19. Let us ensure that sick Canadians have the financial support they need to get through these challenging times.

Canada Labour Code

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in favour of Bill C-220. The bill would extend compassionate care leave provisions beyond the death of a loved for a family member who had taken a leave to care for a loved one. It would provide a bit of time to grieve, to begin funeral preparations and to wrap up an estate, all of which we know are important and take time to do and are particularly difficult to do in the context of losing somebody very important.

I thank the member for Edmonton Riverbend for his work on this issue. I was heartened in our exchange earlier in the House to hear that, even though this bill does not directly propose amendments to the Employment Insurance Act to also extend the compassionate care benefit under employment insurance, the member is aware of this issue and is open to working with others in the House, and may have even begun some work with the government, to ensure this leave is not just available to those who can afford to take it unpaid. Perhaps the employment insurance system can be modified for those who qualify to ensure that people who really need some income support to take that extra time would be able to receive it.

That is really important, because it does not matter how much money we make, whether it is a lot of money or a bit of money; family is important to us all. It is really important to be able to care for our loved ones. It is important to be able to grieve for our loved ones. If we are going to be extending the time people can take away from work for that purpose and ensuring their jobs are protected, it is also important we extend the means that would support their income.

Often a very high amount of the caregiving work in families is disproportionately done by women in the family. We know women typically make less income than men. They are therefore more likely to avail themselves of the leave and are less likely to be able to afford it. That is why it is very important to make these changes to employment insurance along with the changes to the leave provisions.

I want to speak briefly to an issue. There is a procedural obstacle to changing employment insurance benefits in this bill: It is a private member's bill. As members of the House will know, which Canadians at home may not realize, a member needs what is called a royal recommendation to make legal changes that would cause more spending on the part of the government.

As I understand from the member for Edmonton Riverbend, this is the reason those changes were not presented in the bill, and this speaks to the importance of the government. It should be willing to show leadership on employment insurance reform.

I would be remiss if I did not take the opportunity to mention that beyond compassionate care leave and the compassionate care benefit, other important changes to employment insurance have been proposed by the House.

On February 19, a motion was passed in the House of Commons that called for changes to the sick leave provisions, which currently only offer 15 weeks of benefits for people who have to leave work because of illness. The House of Commons has said that it believes benefits should be extended from 15 weeks to 50 weeks. I have a private member's bill, Bill C-212, that would do exactly that.

Today a motion passed unanimously in the House reaffirming this decision of the House of Commons. The government voted against it when it was presented as a normal motion on February 19, but today it passed unanimously. It reaffirmed the decision of the House to call on the government to move the sick benefit from 15 weeks to 50 weeks.

Why do I say this? Because it goes to show that there are serious deficiencies in how our employment insurance system treats people who have to take time off work, whether it is because they are ill or they are caring for a loved one who has become ill. While I commend the member for Edmonton Riverbend for taking this on in a private member's bill, as I have done on the question of sick leave, there really is no substitute for the government showing leadership on this.

We have seen sweeping changes to the employment insurance system as a result of the pandemic. The government has known there is a lot of support in the House for these other changes to the employment insurance system. It is very reasonable for the government to believe, and to have believed when those changes were being contemplated, that if it wanted to change the compassionate care benefit, certainly in the case of the sickness benefit where the House has pronounced on the issue, it could have made those changes at the same time.

That is why we really need the government to step up to the plate to make sure our employment system has the backs of Canadians who, as I say, are either sick or are caring for a loved one. The NDP will certainly support initiatives to do that, like the one that is before the House today, but I would be remiss if I did not mention that it would be better for these proposals to be put together in a bill and presented by the government so that the issue of whether doing the right thing is going to cost a certain amount of money does not prevent those changes from being made.

If we saw the package come forward from the government, we would be able to do it the right way the first time and ensure that Canadians had access to all of the things they genuinely needed, including income support to avail themselves of these things. It should not become one set of benefits for people who are in a certain income category and can afford things without the income support of employment insurance, and another for everybody else who has to go back work to deal with the very things that the House is saying it believes Canadians should not have to deal with without support or extra time.

I wanted to put those remarks on the record because it is important to note that, while this is a great initiative that New Democrats are happy to support, along with efforts to make the necessary changes to the employment insurance system, there really is no substitute for a government that is committed to these things and is willing to move forward with a careful plan in a fulsome way.

Response by Natural Resources Minister to Order Paper Question

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As some members will know, yesterday we had a vote on whether or not the EI sickness benefits should be extended to 50 weeks. This morning I introduced a bill to do just that.

I am hoping that if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-212, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (special benefits), be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Employment Insurance Act

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-212, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (special benefits).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to table a bill to make our employment insurance system work better for Canadians suffering from serious illness.

Currently, EI sickness benefits only last 15 weeks, which is simply not enough for many Canadians suffering from cancer or other diseases with long treatment periods. This legislation proposes to extend those benefits to 50 weeks, the same amount of coverage people can receive if they are laid off.

Just yesterday, the House passed a motion calling for this change, with only the governing Liberals voting against it. This bill is the way to make it happen, to pass from words to action and get relief for Canadians who are suffering now.

Given the support expressed yesterday, I will be moving later today for unanimous consent to send this bill immediately to committee so we can find a way forward as quickly as possible and help relieve the financial hardship that comes with illness for sick Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

I hope that all members in the House will support making quick progress on this important initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)