Bill C-265 (Historical)

Émilie Sansfaçon Act

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

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

Employment Insurance Act

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

moved that Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, this is it. We made it. It is finally time to debate a very compassionate, common-sense bill that seeks to extend special employment insurance sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks. I am very honoured to sponsor this bill on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

It is finally time to put forward a practical, viable solution to a very real and documented problem. It is finally time for parliamentarians to once again tangibly demonstrate their support for the idea that sick workers deserve better and deserve more.

I would like to remind members that the Bloc Québécois's February 2020 motion to extend EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks received the support of all opposition members. I would therefore like to thank the 169 members who supported the proposal and remind them that sick workers still need their support. I hope that, together, we will be able to convince the 149 Liberal members who voted against the motion to support it this time around. As the Speaker pointed out, the Liberal government's support is essential to my bill. I need this government's help because my bill needs a royal recommendation in order to be passed.

It is finally an opportunity to honour and remember Émilie Sansfaçon and bring her political struggle, which courageously began when she was fighting for her own life, to a successful conclusion. It is an opportunity to finally implement something that more than 618,000 people have been calling for, namely extending EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks. I want to thank the incredible Marie-Hélène Dubé for her perseverance and tenacity in rallying support for this effort.

I invite parliamentarians to think back to January 4, 2021, which feels like just yesterday. Think about it this way: If one of your loved ones had a serious illness, like cancer, and their treatment had begun on January 4, that individual would no longer have any income today, because their benefits would have run out. They would have used up their 15 weeks of special benefits. This is unacceptable and, I dare say, embarrassing for a wealthy society like ours.

My bill would make some very simple amendments to the Employment Insurance Act. It would replace all references to the maximum of 15 weeks of special EI sickness benefits with a maximum of 50 weeks.

I want to make it clear that these benefits are for people who lost their jobs against their will. Eligible workers who are sick can collect 55% of their average salary to a maximum of $573 per week.

We can all agree that nobody decides to be sick. Nobody plans to be away from work for a long period of time because of illness. Nobody wants a cancer diagnosis or anything like that. These things are totally involuntary and unpredictable. The workers who need this safety net are the most precarious workers, those who are not lucky enough to have good jobs with private insurance or good coverage under collective agreements.

In 2017, 400,000 people needed this crucial support. It was their only option. These are people from all across Quebec and Canada, of all ages and backgrounds. In many cases, they do not have the privilege of holding well-paid jobs. When they get sick, they typically do not have the financial leeway to fully focus on getting better.

Back home in Salaberry-Suroît, a rural riding, when people get sick they usually have to go to Montreal for treatment. They have to budget for travel, parking and all sorts of medical expenses. Often, spouses also have to take time off work during the treatment periods to support their partner, which adds to the families' financial stress.

These workers deserve better. EI sickness benefits have the added advantage of preserving the employment relationship between the worker and the employer. In other words, when the person recovers and feels better, they can return to their position.

We can all agree that this job security is far from a luxury, especially after fighting for one's life.

My bill is also a posthumous tribute to Émilie Sansfaçon. At 31, this young mother lost her battle with cancer, leaving behind her grieving spouse and her two children. She died before she could see the outcome of her political fight to improve EI sickness benefits by extending them from 15 to 20 weeks, despite a meeting in 2019 with the current Liberal Prime Minister, who gave her hope. However, nothing has changed since then.

The Bloc Québécois leader and member for Beloeil—Chambly noted in the House that Ms. Sansfaçon is the face of the inequity, injustice and discrimination that the seriously ill face in the employment insurance program, but Émilie is also the face of hope, a fighting spirit and perseverance. By passing Bill C-265, the Émilie Sansfaçon act, we will finish the fight for all the Émilies in Quebec and Canada.

I am pleased to remind all my colleagues that in 2019 the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a study confirming that we collectively have the means to adequately support sick workers. It is a sensible and compassionate proposal. It is both realistic and achievable to increase EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50 weeks with a premium increase of six cents per $100 of insurable earnings.

The idea that 50 weeks are necessary in the event of illness was recognized to some extent during the pandemic, as temporary adjustments to EI provided for 50 weeks of benefits in case of need. Nevertheless, it is incoherent that there are still only 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits.

My colleagues will agree that it is peculiar and incoherent that we have the means to support caregivers for a longer period than the person they are caring for. In fact, the caregiver is entitled to 28 weeks, which is excellent, but the person being cared for is only entitled to 15 weeks. Where is the logic in that?

One thing is clear: We cannot afford to let workers mortgage their homes to cover medical expenses, as was the case for longtime advocate Marie-Hélène Dubé. Ms. Dubé was even forced to delay surgery for her third bout of cancer because she had not worked enough hours to be eligible for another 15 weeks of sickness benefits.

We cannot afford to delay remission and leave workers living in financial insecurity throughout treatments. We cannot afford to choose precariousness over compassion.

Today we are debating a progressive bill that I think should galvanize all progressive members in the House.

I never thought I would find myself quoting a former Liberal member, but my Liberal colleagues might be more receptive to the words of one of their own. On November 22, 2011, the former member for Bourassa said, “In a non-partisan way, I am asking all my colleagues to make that gesture of solidarity and support my bill.” This makes good sense. I want to echo this statement and call on all of us to support vulnerable workers.

In the past 10 years or so, parliamentarians have had the opportunity to debate similar bills introduced by the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. The Liberal Party even made the same proposal during the 41st Parliament.

If the Liberals decided to change their position and hammer home the message that workers do not need the 50 weeks that we are proposing and that 15 weeks or 26 weeks are sufficient for all workers, then they need to explain why. For a government that tells anyone who will listen that it governs based on science, this position is untenable and lacks ambition. Statistics from the government's own department contradict its position and confirm that they are abandoning the most vulnerable workers.

The Quebec Cancer Foundation supports extending benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks. I would like to get it on the record that the Canadian Cancer Society is also in favour of extending these benefits and sees 26 weeks as the minimum increase and 50 weeks as the more desirable option.

It is time, hon. colleagues, to join that consensus and support Bill C-265.

I would like to close with a heartfelt plea. Today is budget day. The Liberal government could be generous to the most vulnerable members of our society, to sick workers who need more from the government than financial insecurity, stress and abandonment.

When parliamentarians, citizens and the media read the budget announcements, I hope they will all think about Émilie Sansfaçon and the hundreds of thousands of people like her, and I suggest they look at the situation in the following way.

If the government makes no mention of this issue and continues to provide only a measly 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits, then it is breaking its promise and insulting sick workers.

If the government increases these benefits to 26 weeks, then it is simply providing false comfort hiding the terrible reality that the Liberals are letting down approximately 68% of workers who need those benefits.

If the Liberal government decides to extend these benefits by only slightly more than that, then it has missed an opportunity. The Liberals will not have increased these benefits enough in the eyes of the over 618,000 people who signed the petition started by Marie-Hélène Dubé, which calls for extending EI sickness benefits to 50 weeks.

If the Liberal government is suitably generous and decides to extend benefits to 50 weeks right away, I would be the first to congratulate it and withdraw my bill, Bill C-265, which would then be obsolete.

In other words, let there be no doubt that I will continue to demand what is fair and realistic, because we in the Bloc Québécois have not forgotten Émilie Sansfaçon; because we in the Bloc Québécois stand with vulnerable workers; and because we in the Bloc Québécois choose compassion, solidarity and kindness.

I know the House is capable of doing so, as well. I call on all my colleagues to support this bill.

Let us pass Bill C-265 for the most vulnerable workers.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît for her excellent speech and her excellent bill.

As she indicated when she was introducing her bill, we have decided to support this legislation and we will continue to support it. I have a very simple question for her.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer believes that anyone eligible could take full advantage of the entire benefit period. The reality is that this is not always what happens.

Can my colleague comment on the fact that, if the bill were to pass and 50 weeks of benefits became available, that does not necessarily mean that most people would take the full 50 weeks?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question and the opportunity to clarify.

My bill provides for up to 50 weeks of benefits, but we know that, on average, people need 41 weeks. That is an average, which means that some people who are sick need less than 50 weeks but quite a bit more than 26 weeks. That is well documented and proven. In 41% of cases, workers need more than 26 weeks. They actually need a minimum of 41 weeks.

Just because the bill provides for 50 weeks, people might think that every worker fighting illness will use all 50 weeks. That is not at all the case. We are talking about an average.

In costing this proposal, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that, as a society, we have the means to provide these workers with significant protection so they can focus on fighting their illness instead of stressing about how they are going to support their families and pay for rent, groceries and medical bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the speech and the initiative by my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît.

She is right. For about a decade, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP have been proposing measures to take care of the most vulnerable workers when they fall sick, because we know that the current 15 weeks are not enough and that the proposed 26 weeks provide false comfort.

I would like her to keep going. The average recovery period is often 36, 37 or 41 weeks, as she said. We must also consider the doctor's advice. It is not the worker who chooses to take more or fewer weeks, it is their doctor who determines how much time they should take to recover before they are fit to return to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

He is quite right. As I stated in my speech, nobody decides to be sick. None of us can predict when we will get sick, and often we cannot predict when we will get better, either.

Today, highly effective treatments are available that may affect a person's ability to return to work, but it is the doctor who makes these decisions. The sick worker cannot decide to return to work if their doctor believes that they do not have everything they need to handle their workload. The worker must take the time to fully recover.

A person with an unforeseen illness should only return to work with their doctor's permission. This bill is about supporting a worker fighting for their life who does not have everything they need, such as a collective agreement or private insurance. Even if they want to return to work, they must first accomplish just one thing, and that is to heal. That is why my colleagues must support Bill C-265.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her thoughtful and passionate speech about a bill that will correct a grave injustice.

I would like her to tell us about the choices available to workers. In her earlier remarks, she said that the limited sickness benefit period could force a person who is still recovering to go back to work. A person who has not fully recovered may fall ill again more quickly, and that is another cost to society.

I would like my colleague to comment on that aspect, and I would also like to know if she has had discussions with the Liberals. Does she know on what grounds they would reject this proposal when there is money in the EI fund, which is supposed to be managed independently?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent question.

Quite frankly, I do not understand why the Liberals refuse to propose or give royal recommendation to this bill. We have known for 10 years now that 15 weeks of benefits are not enough. We knew that long before the 15 weeks were granted.

The Liberals are hiding behind their proposal to increase benefits to 26 weeks, which has been announced by the minister several times in the House, but what is her rationale for proposing 26 weeks?

Legislation like the Employment Insurance Act is not amended very often. It is an old piece of legislation that needs to be updated, but just because we change it today and increase the number of weeks to 26 does not mean we could change it again next year. These kinds of changes do not happen often. The Liberals need to reverse their position and agree to this change to increase the number of weeks of sickness benefits to 50. That is what vulnerable workers need.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in this important debate. Before anything, I want to share my condolences to the friends and family of Émilie Sansfaçon. I would also like to recognize the work and advocacy of the member for Salaberry—Suroît.

We never want Canadians to face unnecessary hardship. We are doing whatever we can to put in place the necessary measures to support them when they are going through a difficult time. When eligible Canadians are unable to work, the employment insurance program is there for them. Sickness benefits within the EI program are designed as a short-term income replacement measure, for temporary work absences due to illness, injury or quarantine.

The benefits provide up to 15 weeks of temporary income support at an amount equal to 55% of the average weekly insurable earnings, up to a maximum weekly amount. In 2021, this maximum weekly amount is $595. Right now, too many Canadians exhaust their 15 weeks of benefits before they are able to return to work. That is why our government is committed to extending EI sickness benefits to help Canadians pay their bills while they recover.

EI sickness benefits are one of the many supports available to Canadians with longer-term illness and disability. These supports include the Canada pension plan disability benefit, as well as benefits offered through private and employer insurance, and supports provided by provinces and territories.

Access to EI benefits is normally based on the number of insurable hours that individuals have worked in the year prior to their application or since their last claim. This is known as the “qualifying period.” When we recognized that the COVID-19 pandemic was preventing many Canadians from accumulating the number of insurable hours that are normally required, we took action to address the problem.

We made adjustments so that workers with at least 120 hours of work as of September 27, 2020 could receive a one-time insurable hours credit of 300 insurable hours for claims for regular benefits related to job loss, and 480 insurable hours for claims for special benefits, such as sickness, maternity and parental, compassionate care or family caregiving.

The hours credit is retroactive to March 15, 2020 for claimants who were looking to transition early from the CERB to EI but could not establish their EI claim due to insufficient hours. For those claimants, the qualifying period may also be extended. The hours credit is available for new EI claims for one year, in recognition that labour market conditions remain uncertain and will take time to stabilize.

We knew that even with these temporary changes to the EI program, many workers would still not be eligible. That is why our government introduced the suite of recovery benefits. These benefits include the Canada recovery benefit to support workers, including self-employed workers, who are, themselves, ineligible for EI; the Canada recovery caregiving benefit to support workers who have been unable to work because they need to provide care or support for a child, family member or dependant as a result of COVID-19; and, of course, the Canada recovery sickness benefit.

Along with the CERB and other measures our government introduced, the Canada recovery sickness benefit has become a critical part of our government's public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was created through the safe restart agreement as a temporary income support program for workers who need to stay home because they are unable to work at least 50% of their scheduled work week due to being sick or needing to self-isolate due to COVID-19, or having underlying conditions or undergoing treatments or having contracted other sicknesses that make them more susceptible to COVID-19.

Our government also amended the Canada Labour Code to ensure that workers can have access to job-protected leave and can avail themselves of the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit.

This past February, we proposed amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, which received royal assent on March 17, to increase the maximum number of weeks available for EI regular benefits for claims established between September 27, 2020, and September 25, 2021. We also made changes that would facilitate access to EI special benefits for self-employed workers until September 25, 2021, when all the temporary EI measures end.

Complementary to these amendments, we have made regulatory changes to increase the number of weeks of benefits available for the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit. Again, we did what needed to be done to continue supporting Canadians.

Before I conclude, I would like to say a word about the future of EI. Over the last year, the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed how the EI program has not kept up with the way Canadians work, nor emerging trends in labour markets. That much is clear. It was not built to respond to a major crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

That is why, when the pandemic hit, we recognized very quickly that the current system was not able to cover enough Canadians in the workforce who had been impacted with job loss. It was also not able to keep up with the volume of applications that needed to be processed quickly and efficiently to help Canadians pay their bills and put food on the table.

We have a unique opportunity right now to bring the employment insurance program into the modern era to make it more inclusive. Flowing from last fall's Speech from the Throne and the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion's mandate letter, we are committed to bringing forward a plan for a modernized and inclusive EI system.

We have been working very hard over the past year to introduce a number of benefits to help Canadians get through the pandemic. These benefits have played a pivotal role in buffering the worst economic impacts to Canadians. As I said, we never want to see Canadians suffer. That is why we are doing whatever we can to support them as they are going through this difficult time.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-265, introduced by the member for Salaberry—Suroît.

The bill focuses on EI sickness benefits, which have been capped at 15 weeks since the 1970s, whereas EI regular benefits can last up to 26, or even 50, weeks.

This is not a new issue. I heard about it from Marie-Hélène Dubé, a Rivière-du-Loup resident who contacted me about it. I hear about this issue quite regularly from my constituents. Marie-Hélène Dubé is an acquaintance of mine. Over the years, I have spoken with her several times about the topic we are debating today.

Nearly four years ago, in 2018, I presented a resolution at my party's general council, held in Saint-Hyacinthe, to extend EI benefits in the case of serious illness. This resolution was adopted the members of my party. Last month, I also got this resolution passed by all party members at the Conservative convention, which was held virtually earlier this year.

All parties in the House want to address this issue. The Liberals are sadly the only ones dragging their feet.

I remind members that the Liberal government has been in power since October 2019. It had a majority for the first four years and has remained in power for another year and a half with the help of other opposition parties. So far, the Liberal government has not done anything to extend EI sickness benefits, and I do not see why.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer released a study two years ago in April 2019, estimating the cost of extending sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50. According to this study, it would cost between $1.1 billion and $1.3 billion a year. That may seem like a lot, but it is important to know that the EI program is first and foremost supposed to be independent and self-sustaining. It is funded through premiums paid by workers and employers, which are adjusted periodically based on the claim rate.

In 2019, the contribution rate for workers was $1.62 per $100 of insurable earnings to a maximum of $56,300 a year. The employer pays 140% of that amount, or $2.27 per $100 of insurable earnings. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that extending sickness benefits would cost 6¢ more per $100 earned by a worker. For someone who earns $35,000 a year, that is an increase of $21 a year or $1.75 a month. For someone who has reached or exceeded the maximum insurable earnings of $56,300, the proposed change would cost $33.78 a year or $2.81 a month. If we asked people whether they were prepared to pay between $1.75 and $2.81 a month for peace of mind and access to EI sickness benefits if they were to get cancer or need heart surgery, for example, it is very clear that the answer would be yes.

Balance protection insurance for credit cards and credit disability insurance on car loans both cost far more than 0.06%. They usually cost around 1% of the monthly balance. That amount is 20 times higher than the small increase we are talking about here to extend EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50.

We might well wonder if that is why the Liberals are reluctant to offer EI sickness benefits for longer than 15 weeks. Have insurance companies lobbied the government because they do not want this safety net to make their financial products less attractive?

Let us remember the incestuous relationship between the Liberal government and major financial institutions, which was an issue when the Liberals introduced Bill C-27 in the previous Parliament. That bill proposed legislative amendments to pension standards that would have benefited Morneau Shepell, the family-owned investment company previously run by Bill Morneau, the former finance minister.

As a Conservative, I am very wary of any new tax or government directive that could make it harder for Canada's small and medium-sized businesses to compete. As the owner of a business with about 30 employees, I am all the more wary considering the especially difficult year all SMEs have had. I am here to help them get through the pandemic that we will have to continue grappling with for the next few months, or maybe even more than a year. However, I do not think that contributing an extra $29 or $47 per year per employee will bankrupt my business.

My employees are important to me, and I would love for them to have this lifeline to count on in case they ever have to face such a difficult struggle.

On this subject, I would not accuse the government of overspending. Why, then, are we still here, six and a half years after the Liberals took office? They still have not addressed this issue. The Liberals had a chance to include parts of Bill C-265 in their own Bill C-24, but they decided against it. To top it all off, we learned last week that the government has decided to refuse royal recommendation for Bill C-265, so its odds of being passed by the next election are slim.

Is this what the Liberals call co-operation with the opposition parties? It sounds more like “my way or the highway”. It appears as though they want to call an election right away, so that the Prime Minister can run as a great saviour and promise, for a third time, to increase the number of weeks of EI benefits for serious illnesses, when he had every opportunity to get it done sooner.

A few weeks ago, I asked the government whether it was going to extend EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50 weeks, as set out in the motion the House of Commons passed in February 2020. The government responded that it would first extend this benefit period to 30 weeks.

That is great, but when? Will it be in the budget? We shall see this afternoon. Can the government tell us the difference in cost between 30 and 50 weeks? I remind the House that the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that extending these benefits from 15 to 50 weeks would cost 6¢ for every $100. This figure is not for 30 weeks, but perhaps the government and the Department of Finance did their own assessment.

What is the difference in cost between 15 and 30 weeks? What would be the difference in cost between 30 and 50 weeks? Is the government seriously obstructing Bill C-265 to save 2¢ or 3¢? The Liberal member who will be speaking next has a few minutes to ask me questions. I would like him to start by answering mine.

Beyond the figures I just cited, Marie-Hélène Dubé and Émilie Sansfaçon were extremely resilient, and in the case of Ms. Sansfaçon, to the very end. Ms. Dubé went through three cancer diagnoses in the last 10 years. Earlier I heard my Liberal colleague note that the government has made changes related to COVID-19. I am glad that it did that, with our support, but here we are talking about a recurring thing and not something sporadic in connection with a pandemic. As mentioned by my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît, these are legislative amendments that do not happen often. The Employment Insurance Act has not changed since the 1970s and is no longer adequate. As my Liberal colleague aptly put it earlier, we must absolutely overhaul this legislation to adapt to today's realities.

I could go on for several more minutes, but the reality is that many businesses are struggling to find employees. That is the case in my riding right now. Unfortunately, when some get sick they not only have the burden of their illness weighing on them, but they also bear the financial burden, which becomes an additional stressor and is very hard to bear for anyone going through these difficult times.

Some will say that the Conservatives refused to make these changes in the past. It is true, but the way things are changing we must take care of one another. As my colleague mentioned earlier, people who can take care of those who are sick are entitled to more benefits than the sick people themselves. That makes no sense. We must adapt these new realities to today's life. Clearly, the pandemic added another layer, and the reality is that these types of events primarily affect women.

I believe that we must absolutely support my colleague's bill, and I invite the Liberals to also support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today to discuss this very important matter for thousands of people in Quebec and Canada. We have a duty and a collective responsibility to foster social progress and programs that truly meet people’s needs.

I would like to thank my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît for introducing this bill. It is similar to motions that have been moved in the past by the Bloc Québécois and to bills introduced by the NDP over the past ten years. I would like to thank my colleague because this issue is important to us at the NDP, as a progressive labour party.

People and employees find themselves in extremely difficult and painful situations because they are either ill, seriously injured or have cancer. They are fighting for their lives, sometimes under extreme financial pressure. If they do not have private insurance, a collective agreement or a labour contract that provides for recovery leave, they hit the employment insurance wall and its 15 weeks of sickness benefits, which is totally inadequate.

We consider this issue so important that we want action. We want the people in our society who have no other recourse, help or support to have up to 50 weeks of sickness benefits. We do not want to let these people fall through the cracks. Émilie Sansfaçon’s story and her plea for help touched us all, and we must remember that. There were also all those people rallying behind Marie-Hélène Dubé, who collected more than 618,000 signatures on her petition. Having met Ms. Dubé several times in recent years, I know that she is still on the case.

I therefore think that all of us, as members of parliament, should at least be able to agree on the matter. Our party wants this issue to be successfully resolved so badly that it does not care which party proposes the solution, as long as it leads to the right outcome. To be frank, I must admit that I do not understand how the Bloc Québécois managed to fall short on this file.

Last March, at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona tabled an amendment to government Bill C-24 that would have extended employment insurance benefits from 15 to 50 weeks.

I do not understand why the Bloc member for Thérèse-De Blainville voted against this amendment, agreeing with the committee chair’s opinion that the amendment was inadmissible because it required a royal recommendation. The opposition parties held the majority on the committee and could have challenged the chair’s interpretation. If the three opposition parties, including the Bloc Québécois, had voted in favour of the amendment proposed by my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona, the committee would have brought to the House a bill offering Canadians 50 weeks of EI sickness benefits. Since the amendment was part of a government bill, it would not have required a royal recommendation.

I am disappointed that the Bloc Québécois voted against the NDP’s amendment because it wanted to table its own bill on the same issue a month later. In April, it was decided that Bill C-265 also required a royal recommendation. If the Liberals, unwilling to act in solidarity to help vulnerable and sick workers, refuse the bill, we will be up against a wall. We will once again be left in the lurch, and all of our efforts will have been in vain.

I understand that my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît is pleading with the Liberals to join the rest of us in supporting sick workers in order to resolve the EI issue once and for all. However, we missed a really good opportunity in committee. I think that the Bloc Québécois fell short because of a misinterpretation. I wanted to say that, because I find it extremely unfortunate for the people who are suffering and who have been waiting years for changes to the employment insurance program.

As I was saying earlier, this is not a question of offering everyone 50 weeks of benefits in the case of injury or serious illness, such as cancer. It is a question of offering them the possibility of receiving up to 50 weeks of benefits. If the doctor believes that the person is unable to work and must take more time off to heal before returning to work in good health, as my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé pointed out, we should allow the worker and the doctor to make the best decision possible and provide for more than the current 15 weeks of benefits.

The minister says that they will provide 26 weeks for purposes of consistency. Caregivers are entitled to 26 weeks, while sick people only get 15 weeks. That makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps the government wants to extend the benefits to 26 weeks to avoid being called out on that inconsistency, but that makes no sense because, once again, it is only a half-measure.

As my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît pointed out, the average remission or recovery time for many serious illnesses is 41 weeks. It can be 36 or 37 weeks in some cases, and 45 or 46 weeks in others. All that means is that 26 weeks is not enough.

Stopping at 26 weeks is unrealistic, given what science and medicine are telling us. That is why we will not agree to 26 weeks.

When the Liberals were in the opposition, they voted for 50 weeks. That was a few years ago, and they may not remember, but we do. I think that we can all agree today or in a future vote to support the most vulnerable workers so as to give them hope and the option of taking the time they need to heal properly.

Marie-Hélène Dubé said she was shocked at the government's chronic inaction on this issue despite all of its promises, and at its lack of respect for sick Canadians who, after having paid into the EI program their entire life, receive 15 weeks of benefits when they fall ill even though it takes on average almost 50 weeks to heal.

Shawn Chirrey of the Canadian Cancer Society gave a very specific example: The average treatment and recovery time for breast cancer is 25 to 36 weeks, compared with 37 weeks for colon cancer.

We know, then, that 15 weeks is not enough for cancer patients. We can also see, by the average treatment and recovery times for colon and breast cancer, that 26 weeks is still not enough. The science is clear.

I would ask that everyone make an effort to adopt this common sense measure that, as my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party have pointed out, is eminently affordable. Remember that it costs 6¢ extra per $100 in salary, according to a study by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. There are really no better reasons than human compassion, the scientific approach and affordability to justify this contribution on the part of workers and businesses.

I believe that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities should have accepted the amendment to Bill C-24. It would have been a much easier and more efficient way of giving Canadians 50 weeks.

We have another opportunity here with Bill C-265. However, this time we need help from the government, and the Liberals will have to get on board. Otherwise, I do not know how they will be able to explain it to sick Canadians who want to have the time they need to recover and need financial support. I hope we will be able to agree on a permanent, comprehensive reform of this important social program.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that our social security net is full of holes, that there are major problems with access to employment insurance. For years, under the Conservatives and the Liberals, the majority of workers who contributed to EI did not have access to benefits. Only about 38% of workers who lost their jobs were eligible to receive EI benefits.

The current crisis prompted the government to put certain measures in place. However, the four programs are temporary and will expire this summer or fall. We need to make permanent the changes that were made to improve access to EI. That is absolutely crucial, particularly for self-employed workers, freelancers, contract workers, people working in the arts and culture industry and translators, who have not had access to EI cheques or benefits for years.

The NDP made CERB available for self-employed workers and freelancers. However, we need a real employment insurance reform so that no one slips through the cracks and we are able to take care of everyone who needs it.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the important Bill C-265, the Émilie Sansfaçon act. This is a great opportunity to achieve the goal of permanently extending EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50.

Today is the first hour of debate on this bill at second reading. However, like my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît, I feel like compelled to say that our bill may be for nothing if there is a surprise in the budget that is coming in a few hours.

Yesterday I was watching a public affairs program on TV and saw the President of the Treasury Board say that the goal of the next budget is to go farther and aim higher. The government has a golden opportunity to do just that by supporting our bill.

The bill we are debating has three goals. First, it seeks to correct an unjustifiable inequity and shocking injustice that has gone on for 50 years and must not continue one more day. Second, it seeks to recognize and support people with serious illnesses such as cancer and serious chronic and episodic illnesses such as multiple sclerosis. Lastly, it seeks to help people get better and to support them for as long as their doctor says is medically necessary.

This bill, which would extend the special EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 and permanently fix the Employment Insurance Act, is not the first such bill to be tabled in the House, as my colleagues have pointed out. In the past 10 years, seven bills have been introduced, but none of them got anywhere, and none of them were endorsed by Parliament, despite a broad consensus that still exists today. Why have successive governments failed to act all these years?

This must not become another missed opportunity. We must seize this opportunity and act. As I mentioned in the House last week, this is not a request, but a heartfelt plea. We want to make this amendment to the act to ensure that workers have a social safety net.

A study initiated by the Bloc Québécois is under way at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It involves a comprehensive reform of the EI system. The aim is to strengthen the system and to fix the gaps and flaws that the pandemic has highlighted.

One of those flaws is the fact that special sickness benefits last 15 weeks. That is so outdated. Many groups submitted briefs and many witnesses appeared to speak in support of this initiative, with good reason. They include major Canadian and Quebec unions and the Mouvement Action-Chômage de Montréal. Even here in the House, the NDP, the Conservatives and the opposition parties all support this change, as do 88% of Canadians. I myself surveyed 2,000 residents of my riding, and 85% of them were in favour. What more will it take?

As mentioned, the PBO says it would cost $1.1 billion if everyone took the 50 weeks, but we know that will not be the case. This is therefore feasible and possible.

What would not be feasible, however, would be to do nothing. Not supporting them adequately during their care would leave thousands of sick people at risk of losing their jobs and being more distressed by their financial insecurity than by their health. That was what happened to Émilie Sansfaçon, who sadly died too young from cancer. She shared her heart-wrenching story with us, explaining how her financial situation was causing her more anguish than her own health needs were. This was her struggle, the same struggle thousands of people face. There are people like Émilie Sansfaçon everywhere. We need to continue this fight and, above all, fix the problem. We can no longer neglect these workers, because this is a social, moral and human issue.

We already know that our EI system is far from being a gold mine, even for people who have paid into it their entire lives. If we look at sickness benefits under the regular EI system, individuals have to work 600 hours to be eligible. Even if they are eligible, however, workers are entitled to just 55% of their earnings for a maximum of 15 weeks, which will not be counted in the calculation of insurable hours to qualify for other benefits.

Canada is one of the worst G7 countries in terms of providing a social safety net for workers, just behind the United States. The U.S. provides 12 weeks, Canada 15, France 156, Germany 78, Japan 72 and Italy 52. I have three words to describe the current situation: shameful, embarrassing and stingy. The time has come to be among the best.

The government promised to extend the benefit period to 26 weeks, but it never did. However, that would not be enough. It is not about negotiating or trading a short 15-week period for a half-measure because that would not solve the problem. Instead it is about treating sick workers fairly by providing them with 50 weeks, the same maximum number of weeks that workers are entitled to when they lose their job. We can no longer discriminate against sick workers. We have no choice but to help them because the 50-week period is economically sustainable and socially imperative. All we need is the political will and a vision where our social programs and our social safety net for workers do not leave anyone behind or allow anyone to slip through the cracks.

Do we want to be seen as a society that abandons the most vulnerable, or as a fairer and more equitable society, one that provides support and comfort and is compassionate and humanitarian towards workers and the sick? It is with the latter image in mind that I ask for the unanimous support of the House for this bill to extend EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50 weeks. Not only is it a question of fairness, but it will allow people to take care of themselves with dignity.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent rising on a point of order?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that you will find unanimous consent for the motion that, notwithstanding any standing or special order or usual practice, at 3:59 p.m. today or when no member rises to speak, whichever comes first, Bill C-11, an act to enact the consumer privacy protection act and the personal information and data protection tribunal act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts, be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practices of the House, at 3:59 p.m. today, or when no member rises to speak, whichever comes earlier, Bill C-11, an act to enact the consumer privacy protection act and the personal information and data protection tribunal act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts, be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

The House resumed from April 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Émilie Sansfaçon Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill C-265. I would like to draw a comparison. There is no doubt that there are members on all sides of the House who are very concerned about workers and want to do what we can in order to support them, whether they are currently in the workforce or they find themselves in a situation where they are disabled temporarily or even long term.

Bill C-265 is an attempt to address an issue. Having said that, there are a couple of concerns. One would be in regard to the scope of the legislation. Is it going beyond the scope of what was intended? Bill C-265 recognizes the scope of the EI programs in terms of their objectives, which are quite simple. It is there to help keep workers connected to the labour force.

Members will find that a majority of the workers who end up taking leave beyond 26 weeks do not return to work. In many ways, we need to look at other programs. The government recognizes the need to support Canadian workers who find themselves out of the labour market, either long term or permanently due to disability, and does this through the program that Canadians will be very familiar with, the Canada pension plan disability benefits. The EI program really is not meant to provide that avenue of coverage.

There are concerns regarding the bill we have before us. I would ask members to take a look at what is being proposed by the government, particularly through Bill C-30. The minister has done an excellent job in understanding the importance of making changes to benefit workers in Canada. We have seen that through some temporary measures that have taken place because of the pandemic. When the pandemic hit, we made sickness benefits a priority.

We introduced a number of temporary changes to the EI program in order to support Canadians during this difficult time over the last number of months. Some of those temporary measures were to facilitate access and increase the generosity of EI benefits, including EI sickness benefits, just to cite a few of them. This allowed Canadians to qualify for EI with only 120 insurable hours. I think that was a very well-received initiative by the government.

There was a need, and the government responded by implementing a minimum benefit rate of $500 a week. This particular change had a very positive impact, much like we had through the CERB program with that minimum amount of money. We saw how Canadians benefited in all regions of the country. I thought it was very encouraging when we heard there would be a minimum benefit rate, which was established at $500 per week.

There were also temporary measures to provide access to up to 50 weeks of regular benefits and the freezing of the EI premium rate at the 2020 rate for two years. I see those as very strong, positive actions that were necessary. The minister and the civil servants responded quite quickly in terms of making sure that injured and disabled workers were being seriously looked at and supported during the pandemic.

Bill C-30 has some things within it that I would recommend the House seriously look at. There are many reasons to support Bill C-30: After all, it is our budget bill and a wide variety of things affect so many Canadians. I would encourage members to support this legislation.

There are some specifics about workers. For example, budget 2021 contains commitments to modernize the EI program for the 21st century. It announces consultations on future long-term reforms to EI. Many times, we have seen private members' bills, resolutions and a wide spectrum of other types of debates hit the floor of the House of Commons that talk about EI and how important the program is, and how important it is that we look at ways in which we can make modifications to it that benefit workers.

For years in opposition, I wanted to see some changes to it. With the 2015 election results and the change in government, I was very happy that, for the first time, I had some sense that the government was going to be acting on worker-related legislation that would be more favourable to workers. Many of my Liberal colleagues have wanted to see changes to EI. The announcement of extending or allowing for consultations on future long-term reforms will do us and the people of Canada quite well into the future because of the spectrum of issues we face today. They were not necessarily prioritized in previous years. Extending EI sickness benefits to 26 weeks is a component of that reform.

Budget 2021 is a more balanced approach than the private member's bill that we have before us today. I would encourage members to look at it. In particular, we are seeing the extension of EI sickness benefits. They are a very important component of any reform.

I highlighted some other areas. When we think of sickness benefits, what are they and what do they currently provide? Sickness benefits provide short-term income support and help maintain workers' labour market attachment while they are temporarily unable to work due to a short-term illness, injury or quarantine, which is most appropriate at this time.

The EI sickness benefit would provide up to 15 weeks of temporary income support at an amount equal to 55% of an individual's average weekly insurable earnings, up to a maximum weekly amount. The commitment to increase EI sickness benefits in budget 2021 would also increase the maximum number of sickness benefit weeks available, from 15 to 26. If passed, the bill would provide $3 billion over five years starting in 2021-22 and an ongoing $967 million per year to do just that.

This extension would take effect in the summer of 2022. I would encourage members to look at the benefits to the workers in the budget that the Minister of Finance has brought forward and support it.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to talk about this important bill. I just need a minute to recover from what I heard the parliamentary secretary say a moment ago about extending EI sickness benefits to 26 weeks starting in July 2022. He seemed pretty proud of that, but I do not think this is a very pleasant way for people who are sick now or who are going to get sick in the coming weeks to find out that they will not be entitled to additional protection.

As I said, Bill C-265 focuses on a topic that is especially relevant now considering the circumstances: employment insurance sickness benefits. The bill would extend those benefits to provide essential financial support to people who cannot work because of illness, injury or quarantine.

We are all facing unimaginable difficulties because of the pandemic, but some people are in absolutely dire straits because they are sick. Canadians should be able to concentrate on recovering without having to worry about making ends meet.

Although the EI sickness benefits program is essential, it is troubling to see all the problems with it. The current maximum of 15 weeks of benefits was established in 1971 and has not been updated since.

It is important to remember that this bill also bears the name of Émilie Sansfaçon, a courageous young woman who fought on two fronts. She fought a battle against a fatal form of cancer and she fought for an increase in the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits in order to help others like her.

I would like to remind members that Émilie was a young mother and stepmother to two children. She was diagnosed with cancer twice in the same year. Because the maximum of 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits was not enough to meet her needs, she was forced to remortgage her house, max out her lines of credit and seek financial help from her family to make ends meet.

Less than a week after finishing chemotherapy, she went back to work in order to bring in some much-needed income. She had to go back to work instead of taking the three months she needed to recover both mentally and physically. Five months later, the cancer came back and this time it was more aggressive. It spread to Émilie's lungs and became inoperable. After going on sick leave a second time, Émilie once again found that she was entitled to only 15 weeks of benefits. For someone in her situation, 15 weeks is just not enough, since it usually takes months to recover.

I would like to honour the memory of Émilie, who passed away in November 2020 after fighting tooth and nail to have the EI sickness benefit period extended for all Canadians.

According to a report from the organization BC Cancer, the average treatment and recovery time for those diagnosed with breast cancer ranges from 26 to 36 weeks. For those with colon cancer, the average treatment and recovery time is 37 weeks. Those are two of the most common cancers in Canada. For less common cancers such as rectal cancer, the average treatment and recovery time is even higher, averaging a little over 47 weeks. Clearly, the current 15 weeks of benefits is not enough.

In its recent budget, the Liberal government partially responded to the request. Unfortunately, this policy announcement was disappointing on several fronts. The Liberals capped EI sickness benefits at 26 weeks, despite a motion adopted by a majority of members here in the House that called for a longer period. On top of that, the Liberals have only committed to doing so starting in the summer of 2022. There was absolutely no reason to delay this important change for sick Canadians until next year. People better hope they do not get sick until then.

It is not enough. It is too little, too late. I am not the only member here who is inundated with letters and calls from constituents who can no longer pay their bills and have to go back to work while fighting for their lives.

Allow me to share some examples. Annick wrote to me and I was able to speak to her this evening.

Here is what she emailed me: I am writing to you about employment insurance sickness benefits. I learned in January that I would have to battle an aggressive form of breast cancer. I started chemotherapy, which will continue until June. I will then have a total mastectomy, before having radiation. For this part of my treatment, I will have to travel to Lévis every day, which will cost a lot money. The Employment Insurance Act gives me 15 weeks of benefits. How am I supposed to focus on my recovery knowing that I will have no income after 15 weeks? I will not even finish chemotherapy until after those 15 weeks run out. My doctors expect my recovery to take around a year. I have been working since I was 15 years old. I am now 45 and I have always paid my taxes. I do not know how I will heal, survive, pay for medications, pay my heating bill, buy groceries, buy clothes or meet all of my basic needs. I hope that my email will inspire you and that you will challenge the Prime Minister to review EI sickness benefits. The Prime Minister has been telling us for the past year that Canadians' health comes first, and now is the time to prove it to those of us battling cancer. Thank you for your time. Annick, from Thetford Mines.

I also heard from Diane from Princeville, who received her 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits but cannot go back to work yet. Her only option was to apply for welfare.

Here is what another mother wrote: I would like to know what to do once the 15 weeks of sickness benefits run out. The Prime Minister was supposed to do something about this, but this promise, like many others, was broken. My daughter had a stroke in November. She just finished university in April and was supply teaching in schools, which meant she did not have any disability insurance. She is now in rehab for at least three months, earning no income.

Another example is Nathalie Beaudoin from Plessisville, who had cancer. Her benefits ran out, and her family was getting by on her partner's income. She died today.

Then there is Martine, who has a rare disease. Treatment to fix her immune system is not working and is causing undesirable side effects. She had to go back to work in November because she ran out of money. She is now on her second employer, and it is not easy because she has to miss work to go for treatment. She has been working for a month. Her employer already seems to be finding her absences troublesome because there is nobody to replace her.

We see cases like these every day. In February 2020, the House adopted a motion, backed by the Conservatives, to extend EI benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks in the next budget. At our last convention, we adopted a policy presented by the riding association of my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup to extend benefits to 52 weeks. I repeat: Canadians who are already grappling with serious and often fatal diseases on a daily basis should not have to worry about their financial situation. They should be focusing on their recovery.

Louis Sansfaçon, the father of Émilie, the bill's namesake, had this to say about the Liberals' broken promises: “Émilie fell asleep for the last time in a bed at Hôtel-Dieu hospital in Quebec City on November 5...with no answer, no commitment, disappointed.”

In advocating for a proper extension of EI sickness benefits, Émilie Sansfaçon was fighting not only for herself, but for other seriously ill Canadians, like Annick and Diane.

We all hope that the Liberals will not forget that when it comes time to vote on Bill C-265.

[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.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will try not to get too worked up, even though there is clearly good reason to do so. What we are talking about this evening is extremely important for our constituents, for those who put their trust in us to represent them.

If we polled people on the street about whether a certain bill should be passed, it would be very rare for 10 out of 10 people to agree. However, that would be the case with Bill C-265. This is more than just a number on a bill. It is a battle that has been going on for the past four Parliaments. The member for Salaberry—Suroît is currently waging that battle with passion and strength, and five or six other MPs have waged it before her.

With all due respect for the opposite view, I think that the House needs to face up to its 80-year-old responsibility to improve employment insurance coverage for all Quebeckers and Canadians who lose their jobs. We need to do that not because people are asking us to, but because they need us to.

It might seem ironic for me to explain to the Liberals that we, as parliamentarians, are privileged. Relatively speaking, those of us in this Parliament are the elected officials earning the best living in Canada, and many of us came from a privileged background before we even had the privilege of sitting in this hallowed chamber.

When we lose our jobs, we have support from many people, we get severance packages that can often be considerable and, when we are sick, we do not end up on unemployment. No one feels sorry for us.

I say this because this is not the case for everyone. The workers who pay our salaries and make it possible for us to be here to represent them do not have one-tenth of the security we have. For the vast majority of people, becoming ill sets off a chain of misfortunes and difficult decisions, often because they have no choice. For some people with cancer or other serious illnesses, it can even mean death.

I bring this up a lot, but I want us to remember who we work for. It is always very important to remember, and I will name one of the people we work for. Actually, it is a person we worked for. This individual was let down by a number of governments, but there are thousands of others, including her two children and her spouse.

That person was Émilie Sansfaçon, a woman from Quebec who fought both her illness and the system that allowed her wretched disease to control her life. Nobody here believes that money saves people's lives directly. It does not. However, one thing money can do, especially money that replaces income, is give people a fair fight against disease. Nobody needs a crystal ball to see that health problems are at least as stressful as the possibility of losing everything.

The Bloc Québécois understands that. We have always fought to improve the program. We fought for an independent fund, we fought to eliminate the spring gap, we fought to improve access to regular benefits, we fought to end the classification of unemployed workers, and we fought to improve all types of benefits.

I think the debate on Bill C-265 is less about improving benefits and more about correcting injustice. Talk to anyone battling serious illness, such as cancer, and it will quickly become clear that employment insurance is flawed.

Refusing, as the Liberals do, to see that 15 or 26 weeks are not enough is a serious error in judgment. The Parliamentary Budget Officer outlined the problem very clearly. More than four out of five people who use up the entire special benefit end up taking unpaid leave for another 16 weeks on average. It is absolutely disgusting. Worse yet, not even a quarter of claimants are able to return to work after exhausting the benefit. In developing an important public policy, it is absurd to draw a line based on the least unfortunate quartile of the sick.

In any case, and I want to stress this because it makes me angry, behind all this foot-dragging there seems to be some acknowledgement that this does not look good, but there is also concern that the people who manage to recover will still get the benefit. These are people who are sick and their priority is to return to work, because that would mean they are in good health.

I cannot understand how parliamentarians here can be opposed to the idea of increasing the number of weeks. I recommend they do a little soul-searching.

For someone who is sick, their illness means living with a constant financial threat over their head. For a person who is sick, their illness means losing their job and their employment relationships while they are fighting the disease.

Since special sickness benefits were established in 1971, not only have federal sickness benefits not improved, but the labour market has changed dramatically. Needs are becoming increasingly urgent, especially with regard to achieving work-life balance. Someone who loses their job is entitled to receive regular EI benefits. Someone who has a baby is entitled to maternity leave or parental leave. However, someone who has cancer or a chronic disease and who needs to take frequent or multiple days off work gets only what someone who breaks their arm riding a bike would get. That is not right.

It is unfortunate, but no one wants to fall ill. I think it is high time Parliament made an effort to restore some balance.

For the last six years, it has been 2015 for the Liberals, except for employment insurance. When it comes to EI, they are still stuck in 1971. Must we bring back a DeLorean for the Prime Minister, like in the movie Back to the Future, so he can finally realize this? It would probably be useful for him to go back in time to see one particular thing.

In 2012, he voted for Bill C-291, introduced by the former member for Bourassa. That bill called for the exact same thing we are calling for today. It is a rare thing for me to quote the former member for Bourassa, but I will do it, nevertheless. Before his bill was defeated by the Conservatives, here is what he had to say:

In a non-partisan way, I am asking all my colleagues to make that gesture of solidarity and support my bill.

That is exactly what I am asking my colleagues today with an additional argument. The House has already agreed to extend EI benefits from 15 to 50 weeks in the event of a serious illness. That was not so long ago, on February 18, 2020. Furthermore, there are many reasons for supporting our bill. The lesser known reason is that employment insurance is a so-called stabilizing program. I am not the one who said that; it was Stephen Poloz, former governor of the Bank of Canada.

There is no doubt that because of the current crisis many people understand the importance of a good EI program. I really do not understand the government's foot-dragging. It claimed to be the champion of the less fortunate, but perhaps that was nothing but a publicity stunt. I hope not.

How will Liberal members explain it if they do not support the bill introduced by the member for Salaberry—Suroît? Is there something they fail to understand? The bill is not that complicated. It only amends the Employment Insurance Act by increasing the maximum duration of sickness benefits from 15 to 50 weeks. It is as simple as that.

I reiterate that this is nothing new, nor has it come out of the blue. We should all agree that this is just common sense. However, we need the government's support. On April 15, 2020, the Speaker of the House rightly reminded us that in order to pass third reading and head to the Senate, Bill C-265 would need royal recommendation. That means the fate of the will of the House, as expressed through a majority motion in 2020, rests entirely with this government.

If the Liberals do not support the bill, they will have to live with the consequences of their refusal, because vulnerable Quebeckers and Canadians will suffer as a result.

In closing, I want to thank the member for Salaberry—Suroît for her determination in championing this bill. I also want to thank the 162 members of the House who had the courage to set partisanship aside in February 2020 and vote in favour of the Bloc Québécois motion. I hope they will once again show their support for the struggle of survivors and those still fighting to make our society a little fairer and more supportive by voting in favour of Bill C-265 in memory of Émilie Sansfaçon.

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

Madam Speaker, my speech will wrap up the debate on the Émilie Sansfaçon bill.

I remind the House that the purpose of Bill C-265 is to extend EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks. It is a short bill that could really benefit all the most vulnerable workers, who are left with no income while sick, often while fighting for their lives. It is a bill that would allow workers to recover with dignity.

Canada is a rich country, but all it has to offer to sick workers is instability, stress and financial insecurity. That is embarrassing and unacceptable. Workers get 15 weeks to fight an illness, recover and return to work. However, all the studies show that people need an average of 41 weeks to fully recover.

In the last budget, we were disappointed to see that the Liberals were taking action, but only to extend the benefit period to 26 weeks. We know the Liberals' intentions. The fact remains that this half measure is hard to justify.

During the first hour of debate, I ended my speech in the House by stating this about the benefits: “If the government increases these benefits to 26 weeks, then it is simply providing false comfort hiding the terrible reality that the Liberals are letting down approximately 68% of workers who need those benefits.”

I share the disappointment of the 68% of sick workers. These thousands of workers paid premiums every payday but have been abandoned because they are sick. These thousands of Quebec and Canadian workers would be entitled to a much more ambitious and responsive social safety net if they worked in France, Germany, Sweden, Norway or even California.

A briefing note on the budget helps us better understand the Liberal government's arguments justifying this 26-week period. It states:

The data suggest that a worker is not likely to return to work, could be away from work much longer [and] could leave the labour force altogether after taking more than 26 weeks of leave. Although some stakeholders support extending the duration of sickness benefits to 50 weeks, this would not be in keeping with the main objective of employment insurance sickness benefits, which is to provide income support to workers on short-term sick leave.

That argument is unacceptable.

Honestly, that analysis made me mad. It essentially says that being sick for too long has various consequences, including financial insecurity and increased vulnerability, since the government is severing our employment relationship. It means that the insurance we paid into with every paycheque does not cover us. It means that we are on are own. All these consequences are discriminatory and neglectful.

As we speak, there are workers who are sick. There are workers who are getting better. There are workers who just want to recover and go back to work. There are workers whose 15 weeks will soon be up, which is making them anxious, because they do not know how they are going to pay their bills or even pay for medical transportation.

These workers, who receive little compassion, are being offered a maximum of 26 weeks. To add insult to injury, no one knows exactly when in 2022 this improvement will be made by order. However, we have the means right now to offer 50 weeks. Cabinet knows that, I am sure of it.

When I was drafting my bill, I had some terrific meetings that left a big impression on me. In particular, I met Émilie Sansfaçon's father, Louis Sansfaçon, who took up the political fight of his daughter, a young mother we lost much too soon. There is nothing purer than a father's love for his daughter, for his child. This was evident in all the meetings I had with Mr. Sansfaçon.

If any of my Liberal colleagues are still not convinced that 50 weeks are necessary, I invite them to have a short meeting with Louis Sansfaçon and Marie-Hélène Dubé, who is also a fighter for this cause. It is impossible to remain indifferent to their life stories, and it is insensitive to offer them a half measure in response.

Now is our chance to vote to make the point once again that workers need 50 weeks, not 26 weeks, and that the Liberals are making a mistake by insisting on abandoning vulnerable workers. I encourage them to move in the right direction and do the right thing by voting in favour of my bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request either a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate so to the Chair.

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

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

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to an order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 26, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from May 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), be read the second time and passed.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:25 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-265 under Private Members' Business.

Call in the members.

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

Vote #120

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, this bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

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