Bill C-215

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

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act to increase from 15 to 52 the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid because of illness, injury or quarantine.

Employment Insurance Act

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

moved that Bill C-215, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to debate my private member's bill, namely Bill C‑215, which seeks to amend the number of weeks for employment insurance sickness benefits.

The bill proposes to increase from 15 to 52 weeks the period for which Canadians eligible for employment insurance sickness benefits are able to use extra weeks for their recovery or their convalescence with a minimum amount of financial security in case of serious illness, such as cancer and other illnesses that require long recovery periods.

This is not a new debate in the House. Every party has introduced similar bills over the past few Parliaments, which implies a certain unanimity among members. Since the devil is in the details, even with positive support in the House, we absolutely need the support of the Liberal government to obtain royal recommendation, since there is a financial implication to Bill C‑215.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer did a study in 2019 and March 2022 proving that this bill is affordable and the cost shared by Canadians and Canadian employers is reasonable. The study indicates that 151,000 Canadians a year need more than 15 weeks of sickness benefits for their convalescence. Should those 151,000 Canadians use all of their weeks, which would obviously not be the case, the cost would amount to $1.6 billion a year on average for the next five years. This cost could be lower than forecast because the average number of weeks required is approximately 38, according to the PBO costing note updated on March 29, 2022.

This debate is truly important for Canadians. Families in my riding have been calling on me for a long time to improve this situation. The lived experiences of Canadians across the country and what I have personally gone through with people very close and dear to me remind me of the harsh reality of the hard times and difficult challenges we have faced with sick family members, who were unable to take care of themselves or even work to pay their bills.

All too often, Canadians with long-term health issues find it very hard to make ends meet and to cover the additional costs resulting from their prolonged illness. These people enjoy an active social life and do not deserve to be left on their own or to lose their dignity.

All of us in the House have a duty to support those who are not covered by income protection insurance, a type of private insurance that is too costly for low-income earners. That is why Bill C‑215 is so important for Canadians. Its low cost affords some basic financial security in the event of a prolonged illness. We are talking about less than the cost of one coffee a month.

Solidarity and compassion are important to me, and I am hoping I can rally the support of all my colleagues here in the House because solidarity and compassion are important to them too. I have faith that, together, we can support the individuals and families who are affected every year when a loved one is diagnosed with a serious or even life-threatening illness. Once again, we have a collective responsibility to do something.

We cannot let life partners, parents, children and grandchildren think that, in Canada, we do not take care of each other and we do not support those who are suffering. Some stories are easier than others, but if we pass Bill C‑215, we can give Canadians some mental and financial peace of mind.

As members know, everyone here who is in good health is unbelievably lucky, and this good health is too often taken for granted. For many, cancer is life experience, but others are not lucky enough to recover quickly, especially if they have many other concerns on their plate. The medical aspect is just one part of living with cancer. Then there is life after treatment, which is a period of transition and adjustment that often brings much bigger challenges than the patient was originally expecting.

Given the scope of the challenge facing Canadians and the tremendous resilience they will show, we must absolutely support them through this experience, which involves precarious periods of great uncertainty.

Many people have to rethink every aspect of their lives, and that takes a lot of courage. Unless I am mistaken, Canadians can count on the opposition parties' firm commitment to supporting them now and on today's debate persuading the Liberal government to give them what they deserve, which is the right conditions for recovery while they await better financial support.

Here in Canada, we are lucky to have a health care system that delivers hospital care to sick people for free. However, there can be many out-of-pocket and unforeseen expenses. Travel to the treatment site is one example, along with parking, child care, nutritional supplements, vitamins and prescription drugs, as well as any equipment needed for recovery.

Employment insurance sickness benefits provide up to 15 weeks of financial support to individuals who cannot work for medical reasons. That means 55% of a person's pay up to $595 per week. To be eligible, individuals must obtain a medical certificate indicating that they cannot work for medical reasons. Medical reasons may include sickness, injury, quarantine or any other condition preventing them from working.

Insurable earnings include most types of employment income, such as wages, tips, bonuses and commissions. The Canada Revenue Agency determines what constitutes insurable earnings.

Some employers provide their own paid sick leave or short-term disability insurance plans. Before applying for employment insurance sickness benefits, individuals must check to see if their employer has a plan. If a medical condition is likely to be long-term or permanent, individuals may be eligible for other benefits, such as the Canada pension plan disability benefit or the Quebec pension plan disability benefit.

I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a very important report on EI sickness benefit policies that was produced following a multi-stakeholder policy round table held on September 4, 2019. This 2019 round table brought together seven different stakeholders interested in Canada's sickness and disability benefit policies.

This initiative was organized by the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Labour Congress, Cystic Fibrosis Canada, Diabetes Canada, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada and Neurological Health Charities Canada.

The discussions followed an initial conversation at a similar forum in 2015, which provided an update on the state of health benefits in Canada. One notable difference between the 2019 round table and the 2015 forum is that the 2015 discussion took a more holistic view of the supports offered, whereas the 2019 session focused primarily on recommendations for health insurance benefits.

The report found that in any given year, six per cent of Canadian workers will suffer a personal health issue that will require them to adjust their work status, including being away from work for an extended period of time, changing from full-to-part time work, and leaving the labour market entirely; and pointed to the need for a comprehensive re-examination of the needs of working Canadians who are living with an illness or a disability. In particular, two conclusions were focused upon:

1. The call for improved coordination within government and between levels of government, including greater coordination of research;

2. The call to increase basic access to support coverage.

I would also like to draw my colleagues' attention to a very important point that was raised during the debate on former Bill C‑265. During that debate, a member said that there were many inconsistencies in program administration, the most obvious being that a caregiver is entitled to 26 weeks of benefits while a sick person is entitled to only 15 weeks.

Some might balk at the idea of providing 52 weeks, that it may be too much. I would just point out that no one has ever gotten rich from being sick, and especially not with 55% of their salary in the short and medium terms. When you battle cancer with a loved one, as I have, 15 or 26 weeks are not nearly enough. I do not need an expert to confirm that.

Some people have expressed concern over potential abuse or fraud by program recipients. As hon. members know, anything is possible. Still, to be eligible for employment insurance sickness benefits Canadians must fill out an application and provide a medical certificate from their doctor or health specialist.

I would therefore like to reassure these people by proposing certain initiatives. After second reading, during study of the bill in committee, we could rely on experts and health specialists to identify all the serious illnesses that are eligible for this extension of benefits to 52 weeks.

We could bring in employment insurance officials to explain the audits that are carefully done every year for the EI monitoring and assessment report.

To conclude, I will reiterate all the positive points of my Bill C-215. All parties and experts in the field agree that we must increase the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50. This bill proposes to extend benefits to 52 weeks.

It is our duty as legislators to ensure that we have an adequate safety net for the most vulnerable. This measure affects 55% of the population, namely those who do not have group insurance and work primarily in the goods and services sector.

The EI program has rigorous monitoring and annual audit mechanisms to prevent mistakes, fraud and abuse. The medical certificate attests to the number of weeks required for the recovery of an applicant through the healing process.

This is a promise that was made by the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2021 election campaign. It is a measure that was voted on by members of our party and presented in the Conservative Party of Canada platform.

Employees who have a private health plan must use up their weeks of sick leave before applying for EI sickness benefits.

This measure is affordable and reasonable when we consider the cost to small and medium-sized businesses of private insurance plans offering the same benefits.

In July 2022, the Liberal government will extend the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits to 26, which means that the PBO's cost estimate will decrease considerably.

I hope to get the support of all my colleagues in the House for this noble cause, which will make it possible for those we love to take care of themselves and have the time they need to fully recover.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I would note that this particular bill that has come forward is almost identical in form to Bill C-265, from the 43rd Parliament. The reason why I bring this up is because, after Bill C-265 went through all the stages of the House and returned back here, the Speaker ruled on the third reading of the vote that it could not proceed because the bill did not have the required royal recommendation.

I am wondering this. Can the member provide some input as to whether the discrepancies or the challenges within the bill, which require that royal recommendation, have been properly dealt with? At my first glance, it does not appear as though that is the case. Unfortunately, it appears that the bill will, in all likelihood, end up with the same fate as that previous bill.

Can the member let us know?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right.

To obtain royal recommendation, I need the support of the Liberal government or two ministers in the House. It is true that other opposition parties have previously introduced similar bills. This bill is very good for Canadians.

You have the pressure of deciding whether to support this bill or not. It is up to the Liberal government to say yes or no, and you will live with the consequences of your decision.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Order. I remind the hon. member that he must address his comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my Conservative colleague for introducing this bill. The bill comes after we have been fighting for 10 years to increase EI sickness benefits to 50 weeks from the 15 weeks that have been provided for the past 50 years.

My colleague was asked by the party opposite whether this bill required a royal recommendation.

Does he think that what is really required here is for the government to show some political will in moving this forward?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She is absolutely right.

I think every member of Parliament is in favour of this bill. All the parties have previously introduced similar bills, including the Liberal Party. The current Prime Minister voted in favour of such a bill during a previous Parliament. I think that all members in the House can do some soul-searching and move forward.

It is up to the Liberal government to allow the House to move forward with Bill C‑215. I would go so far as to say it is the wish of the entire House, because this bill will no doubt be supported by the majority.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Conservative colleague and congratulate him on his private member's bill. This is a very good idea, one that the NDP and other parties have already had. It would really help people.

I always like it when the Conservatives, while in opposition, do things that are good for workers.

However, it did take them some time to get to this point. Why did my colleague not introduce a bill like this one when his party was in government?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

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

The whole process was 100% democratic. This measure, which we managed to put in the Conservative Party of Canada's platform, came from an association in Quebec. Moving forward with this is now one of our party's national objectives.

I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois and the NDP for supporting my bill because they had similar bills themselves.

I think this is very much the right time to go ahead with this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what really motivated my colleague to introduce this bill.

In my riding, I have seen so many people end up with absolutely nothing. Even as they were fighting for their lives, they could not cover their basic expenses.

Is that the kind of situation that motivated my colleague?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was actually my personal experience for a year.

My wife had cancer, and I had to support her. Without the help of my whole family and our friends, we would have had a very hard time getting through a very hard year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. colleague for his story and for his words. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this proposed amendment.

Our employment insurance program is there to support Canadians when they are unable to work or unable to find work. Over the past several decades, governments have amended the EI Act to adapt to Canada's changing employment environment. In that same tradition, the bill we are debating today seeks to change an existing program to address evolving circumstances. However, we need to ensure that any amendments to the EI Act are considered in the full context of the new reality. Please allow me to outline some of the reasons that the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion opposes Bill C-215.

Parliament has already approved an extension of EI sickness benefits from 15 to 26 weeks. We are working hard to implement the extension this summer to better support Canadian workers. In contrast, an extension of EI sickness benefits from 15 to 52 weeks, as proposed in this bill, would incur an estimated incremental cost of over $2 billion per year, which is $1 billion more per year than the extension to 26 weeks. It could impact labour-market attachment and participation by providing additional income support to many workers who are not expected to return to work, and could result in a drop in employer-provided sickness benefit coverage, leading to more claims against the EI program.

Sickness benefits within the EI program are a short-term income replacement for temporary work absences due to illness, injury or a quarantine. When Canadians are facing illness or injury, they deserve to feel confident that the EI program is financially supporting them and protecting their jobs as they recover. Unfortunately, we recognize that some workers use the maximum number of weeks of EI sickness benefits available to them before they are healthy enough to return to work.

A worker who needs more time to recover from an illness should not have the added burden of coping with financial stress, which is why in budget 2021 our government pledged to extend EI sickness benefits from 15 to 26 weeks. The permanent extension of the EI sickness benefits, expected to be in effect by the end of this summer, will provide Canadians with additional time and flexibility to recover and return to work. Other supports are available to workers who may be eligible for longer-term illness and disability, including the Canada pension plan disability benefit, benefits offered through private and employer insurance, and financial supports provided by the provinces and territories.

The current 15 weeks of temporary income support available under EI sickness benefits provide an amount equal to 55% of the worker's average weekly insurable earnings. In 2022, this maximum weekly amount is $638. In 2019-20, on average, workers used approximately 10 weeks of EI sickness benefits. However, just over one-third of workers used the full 15 weeks of sickness benefits available. That told us there was a need to extend the number of weeks available to provide more time to recover for those suffering from longer-term illness. That is why we have committed to increasing the maximum number of weeks from 15 to 26 weeks. We think this strikes a good balance.

The increased number of benefit weeks is a positive change to the EI program, but the government has a much bigger picture developing that must also be addressed. When the COVID pandemic struck, it quickly exposed inadequacies in the EI program. It taught us that EI has not kept up with the way Canadians work, nor has it kept up with emerging trends in labour markets. The gradual and continued emergence of gig workers and self-employed Canadians in recent years is perhaps the best example. The CERB and the Canada recovery benefit helped many of those 2.9 million people keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. It is clear that the EI program was unable to adequately respond to a major crisis like the COVID pandemic, hence the necessity for the government to introduce a series of emergency benefits.

On the positive side, the government is grasping the unique opportunity to bring the employment insurance program into the modern era and to make it more inclusive. Indeed, it is a major component of the mandate letter for the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion.

Last summer, the minister joined the Canada Employment Insurance Commission to launch the first phase of a two-year consultation on the future of the EI program. To reach as many Canadians as possible, the minister asked her department to launch a consultations portal, which included an online survey, where all interested Canadians could share their views. The survey was open from August 6 to November 19 last year and drew more than 1,900 responses. Approximately 60 written submissions came from a cross-section of labour, employer and other groups.

The minister personally attended many of the 10 national and 11 regional round tables to hear feedback on how the EI program could better serve Canadians. Input was received from more than 200 stakeholders across the country, including employer and employee organizations, unions, academics, self-employed and gig worker associations, parent and family associations, and health associations, just to name a few. The overarching goal is to bring forward a vision for a new and modern EI system that is simpler and more responsive to the needs of workers and employers.

The first round of the consultations focused on key priorities relating to improving access to EI, including how to address the temporary emergency measures that will expire this fall. We are also examining whether the EI system meets the evolving and diverse needs of Canadian families, like, for example, how to make maternity and parental benefits more flexible and inclusive for adoptive parents. There are differing views, obviously, but I know the minister has found a unanimous commitment on the part of both employer and employee representatives to develop a modern EI program that is resilient, accessible, adequate and financially sustainable. The government is planning a second phase of round-table consultations by the summer.

Aside from the information, advice and recommendations from the round tables and online consultations, there are several other reviews, evaluations and reports already available. In particular, there was some excellent work in 2021 by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which included 20 recommendations on modernizing the EI program.

In conclusion, the EI program has been a crucial part of Canada’s social safety net since 1940. As I mentioned earlier, EI has become the most complex system within the Government of Canada. Reforming EI for the 21st century is essential, and the government is moving with pace to get it done and, more importantly, get it done well.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in support of the bill introduced by the member for Lévis—Lotbinière, which seeks to increase the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits to 52 weeks.

I welcome the bill, but I am sorry to see that we are still at this point. We nearly made it to the finish line in the last session. Bill C-265, the Émilie Sansfaçon act, introduced by my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît to increase the number of weeks of sickness benefit from 15 to 50, made it through the committee stage. Sick workers were finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.

Unfortunately, as we know, the bill required a royal recommendation, which was never given. Then we were left with nothing, because an election was called. Only the government knows why it was called. It is a total mystery, like the Caramilk secret.

I would never put it the same as the member for Lévis—Lotbinière did, and I am surprised he did not say it, but after 10 years of struggle and multiple bills, it is a disgrace that we are still at this point.

Nevertheless, I will try to avoid giving a history lesson and instead look to the future, because this bill is fundamentally about hope. It represents the possibility for sick workers to look forward to the future with optimism and with the tools they need to recover in dignity.

Supporting this bill is a matter of consistency and willingness to listen. The weeks of sickness benefits have one purpose: to give insured workers the time to heal while maintaining their employment relationship and to offer them income to support their needs.

To be consistent, these benefits need to be tailored to every type of illness. Some call for more time than others.

During the implementation of the original program of 15 weeks of sickness benefits 50 years ago, 82% of workers had to take more than 16 weeks to recover before returning to work. The program was already flawed because it was demonstrated that recovery took longer than 15 weeks. It seems to me that it would be logical to adjust this measure to make it meet its primary mission, namely to provide the necessary number of weeks of benefits for people to recover from any type of illness.

The government has been talking a lot about science. Science obviously needs to have a role, but what do science and research currently tell us? They tell us that on average, in cases of serious illness, a person needs at least 40 weeks to recover. The current program offers 15 weeks, but this inconsistency is not new. We have to rectify this.

A number of people spoke out against the situation and called for change. People have been saying for years that 15 weeks is not enough. The government needs to listen.

It needs to listen to Émilie Sansfaçon, who dedicated her final years to this cause and who was calling for 50 weeks. The government must listen and it must acknowledge the hard work done by Marie‑Hélène Dubé and the 619,000 signatures she collected in support of increasing the number of weeks of sickness benefits. Ms. Dubé has been advocating for this for 10 years.

Seven bills have already been introduced in the House on the same issue. One such bill was introduced by Denis Coderre and received the support of the current Liberal Prime Minister, who was an opposition member at the time.

Listening also involves being logical. We must acknowledge the many bills that have already been introduced in the House and address this issue.

We have had debates about this, we have had studies, recommendations and committee reports. It is time to stop dithering and get this done. At this point, all we need is the political will.

In its most recent budget, the government decided to increase the number of benefit weeks to 26. That will not happen until July. Recently, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion said that it might even take another three months because the computer systems are not ready. Apparently they are too old to handle these changes.

My question is, why stop at 26 weeks? Why stop halfway when we know that it takes people at least 40 weeks to get better?

The government was supposed to fix things once and for all for workers who contribute to EI, get sick and need protection.

There is private insurance and there is public insurance. These are not the workers we are talking about, because 60% of workers do not have private insurance. They cannot afford private insurance.

I would remind members that a majority of the House of Commons voted in favour of a Bloc Québécois motion to that effect. At least 50 weeks are needed. On June 17, 2021, when the Émilie Sansfaçon bill was being studied in committee, it passed unanimously, without amendment. It was just a matter of will.

The bill also raises a fundamental question. As we figure out how to live in harmony with one another, what values should we base that on? For me, it is fairly obvious. It is about compassion. Workers need to be able to recover from an illness without falling into poverty.

We hear some real horror stories. Some people are forced to use up all of their savings, while others have to remortgage their homes to survive financially. Some manage to get by, because they have enough savings and a good family and support network. Others are forced to fend for themselves. It makes no sense to leave people in such poverty.

From the beginning of this parliamentary session, the government has been trying to convince us that it must intervene in health, trampling on provincial jurisdictions in the process. It now has an opportunity to take meaningful action that will have a real impact on people's health, while remaining within its own areas of jurisdiction. Will the government seize this golden opportunity?

I am appealing to our compassion. We have to allow workers to recover with dignity. It is a matter of justice. Need I remind members that this money belongs to workers and employers? That is how the employment insurance system works. A worker who contributed to the system their entire life and gets sick should be entitled to enough weeks of benefits to recover. It is as simple as that. It is their money after all. It is only fair that they have access to it.

The government justifies its half‑measure by invoking the argument of cost. It says that it is too costly. It would not cost $2 billion, but $1 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that this would cost roughly $1.1 billion more a year.

The government's upcoming budget presents an opportunity. Given that the government is going to spend billions of dollars on issues that are not its own priorities, it must be able to invest $1 billion to correct such a serious injustice toward sick workers.

The member who spoke before me talked about employment insurance reform. There have been calls for such reform for years. The Liberal government promised to reform the system in 2015. It needs to happen now.

There are two opportunities to take action: the budget and employment insurance reform. This needs to happen today, not tomorrow.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the name Marie‑Hélène Dubé mean anything to you?

For 10 years, she has been the voice of thousands of people, especially women, who are fighting serious illnesses like cancer under difficult conditions. They have had to deal not only with the illness, but also with the financial problems it causes because of the current limitations of Canada's Employment Insurance Act.

Marie‑Hélène submitted the largest-ever petition to the House, a petition signed by 600,000 people. Originally from Rivière‑du‑Loup, in my riding, Marie‑Hélène now lives in Montreal and has had cancer three times. Not one, not two, but three. She went through all her bouts with cancer in very precarious financial circumstances because the EI system only provides 15 weeks of benefits. Those with family members or friends battling this horrible illness of cancer know that it is not possible to recover in 15 weeks.

Statistics show that, in many cases, a minimum of 52 weeks of treatment is needed to beat the illness. Let us be clear, people affected by an illness certainly do not need financial stress on top of that. In an advanced country like Canada, where so-called progressive parties such as the Liberal Party and the NDP have united in the hope of providing free dental care and universal care for all, I find it inconceivable that the Liberals are proposing to increase benefits to only 26 weeks, or half the time required for a full and potentially complete recovery from the illness.

The vast majority of people affected by different types of cancer are women, and most of the time they are vulnerable. In this context, should a so-called feminist government led by a Prime Minister who calls himself a feminist not revisit its position on a bill such as this one?

Of course, Marie‑Hélène Dubé is not the only one who spent more than 10 years fighting for this cause and for people with serious illness, but we all know it is pretty rare to see someone so determined to further a cause. I am deeply grateful to her for all her hard work, which I hope will come to fruition this time. Over the past 10 years, several bills have been introduced to fix this injustice, including by the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. They got through several stages, but unfortunately went nowhere.

The Conservative association for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup instigated a proposal to make this issue one of our party's policies at the request of several people in my riding who received only 15 weeks of EI benefits to recover from diseases that often require more than a year of treatment. We cannot ignore that fact. That is why our party adopted this measure. Today I am proud to support the private member's bill introduced by my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière.

Life is short, and we must do everything we can to improve the lives of sick and vulnerable people, especially women. Less than a month ago, Stéphanie Bourgoin, a 35-year-old mother of three in my riding, found out she had breast cancer.

Are we even capable of imagining the impact of such news on the psyche of a dynamic, loving young mother of three or what she will have to go through? Does anyone think we should add insult to injury by telling her she can have a mere 15 weeks of EI benefits to get through this difficult time?

Another survivor in my riding, Nancy Dumont, had this to say about the issue we are attempting to address with Bill C‑215.

In an era of full employment, it is time to make major changes to the EI program. Needs have changed since the 1970s. Cancer is a scourge, and its impacts have tentacles that reach into all areas of our lives. I can assure you that all of my energy and all of my thoughts during these four long years centred on one thing: healing and living. It is inconceivable that people do not have access to a minimum of 52 weeks of sickness benefits.

When illness leads to bankruptcy or debt, we need to ask ourselves some questions as a society, as Canadians. As Terry Fox put it so well, not all marathons are won at the the finish line. Elected officials, you have a chance to make a real difference for the 229,200 Canadians who will receive a cancer diagnosis this year.

Canada must do better.

Please allow me to digress for a moment. Nancy Dumont started work again yesterday, after four years of fighting cancer. That is why my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière introduced Bill C-215 and why I am so pleased to support it. I hope this bill passes quickly, because we have done our homework on this issue.

I would remind members that the Parliamentary Budget Officer already analyzed the costs associated with this measure to extend EI benefits in the event of serious illness in 2019. According to his findings at the time, extending benefits from 15 to 50 weeks would have a financial impact of $1.1 billion in 2020, rising to $1.3 billion by 2025. This might seem like a huge number, but the government has a budget of $400 billion. In any case, that money would not come from the government, but from the pockets of workers and employers.

As Conservatives, we are always concerned about public spending, and we do not wish to increase the tax burden on Canadians to the point where our competitiveness would be jeopardized. I would therefore remind the House that EI premiums do not come from tax revenues, but rather from the direct contributions of employers and workers.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer calculated that this billion dollars, distributed among all workers, would mean employees would have to contribute 6¢ more, which, in 2019, was $1.62 for every $100 in insurable earnings, up to the maximum insurable earnings of $53,000 per year.

I want to point out that the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a study yesterday with an update on those figures. Because the labour shortage has brought down the unemployment rate, the employee contribution has dropped to just $1.58 for every $100 in earnings. Even if we were to add the aforementioned 6¢ to ensure that all Canadians are covered for up to 52 weeks in the event of a serious illness, that contribution amount would be $1.64, which is less than the 2018 premium rate of $1.66.

This increase would put the maximum additional contribution per year at $31.86 for the employee and $44.60 for the employer. I am an employer, and $45 a year per employee would not change much for my business. Governments have implemented other measures in recent years that have had more of an impact on my business.

I also want to note that this amount of 6¢ per $100 falls well short of the regulatory requirements in connection with the disability insurance or balance protection products offered by the mortgage, vehicle financing or consumer credit sectors. With this measure, the vast majority of the public will save money.

This measure to extend EI benefits in the event of serious illness from 15 weeks to 52 was part of our election platform in 2021. I talked about this issue on the campaign trail for 30 days. I met many people who had gone through such tragedies.

All my colleagues in the Conservative Party want this measure to be brought in because it is compassionate and family focused, which lines up perfectly with our values. I invite all my colleagues to rally behind Bill C‑215 and ensure it is passed quickly, because sick people do not choose when they will get sick.

Stéphanie Bourgoin, a young 35‑year old mother in my riding, cannot wait until this summer or next year. She has cancer now, so she needs benefits now.

In closing, I heard what my Liberal colleague said earlier, that people would abuse the program in some cases. I honestly do not think that we are in any position to talk about women and accuse them of stealing. As my colleagues have pointed out, it is the doctors who issue certificates of serious illness, and they are the ones who determine how long the individual will be entitled to the program.

By the way, I congratulate my colleague and all of my colleagues. However, I will not congratulate the Liberals if they do not support this measure. It is a compassionate measure and one that is important for all those who are sick in Canada. As a society, we cannot afford not to pass such a bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Resuming debate.

Before I recognize the hon. parliamentary secretary, I must inform him that he has three minutes today and that he may finish his speech the next time this matter is debated.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this private member's bill.

In the very short time that I have, I would like to address my concern that I raised to the sponsor of the bill when he introduced it earlier this evening; specifically, that this bill inevitably is going to require royal recommendation. We know this, because a bill in almost the exact same form, Bill C-265, came through the House in the 43rd Parliament. It went through this deliberative process in the House. It was voted on after second reading. It went to committee. The Speaker entertained suggestions as to the need for royal recommendation, as he flagged it to be problematic in his view. After it came back from committee, the Speaker ruled that it would require royal recommendation before it could move to the final vote.

It is problematic, because we know it is very rare that a government would provide royal recommendation to a private member's bill. The vast majority of private members' bills that come through the House do not have monetary impacts on them exactly because of that. This is not something that is unique to this particular Liberal government: This is something that is a followed course with all governments throughout the last number of years, decades and perhaps even beyond that.

Although I admire the initiative that is being brought forward by the member, I think it is very clear to him that this will be the inevitable fate of the bill. It leads me to conclude that perhaps the only reason to introduce this bill was to somehow try to shame the government or make it look bad because it would not attach royal recommendation to it. I do not see the benefit of this, or how that would actually advance this particular issue.

To that point, I am thrilled to say that a number of the initiatives that this bill seeks to entertain are actually covered in the budget of 2021, so although this member might be seeking slightly more, a lot of the measures were actually covered in that.

Although I am concerned about the royal recommendation aspect of it, I am certainly interested in hearing more of the debate, and I know that you will give me my remaining seven minutes when we resume it.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from March 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-215, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I usually begin my speeches by saying that I am pleased to participate in the debate on a bill.

However, today, I have to say that I am really disappointed to be here once again debating a bill that, as we know, affects sick workers who need more than 15 weeks of special employment insurance sickness benefits.

During the previous Parliament, I had the privilege of introducing a bill that is similar to that of my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière. We are both concerned about people who worked and contributed their whole life and who did not choose to get sick, to get cancer, for example. They deserve more than 15 weeks of support.

It has been very well documented that, today, workers often need more than 15 weeks to recover. They need to fight the illness, receive treatment, heal and regain their strength before they can return to work. No one chooses to be sick.

As I was saying, I am always happy to debate, but I am incredibly disappointed today. I would even say that I am angry, because we are wasting time. As far back as at least 2011, all parties, including the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and even the Liberal Party when it was in opposition, agreed that it was time to amend the Employment Insurance Act and that these changes were needed to support workers through an illness.

I am disappointed because, as members know, I introduced Bill C‑265 in the previous Parliament, and this bill was passed at second reading. We worked on it in committee, which was an amazing experience for me. It was the first time that I had the opportunity to debate with parliamentarians from all parties and to hear witnesses speak to Bill C‑265. Today we are debating Bill C‑215, which is practically the same bill. I am sharing this story with my colleagues because committee stage is the right place and the most appropriate place to have in-depth debate and improve the bill.

We can all agree that Bill C‑215 is not a big bill. It seeks to amend just one section of the Employment Insurance Act. We are asking that benefits be extended from 15 weeks to 52 weeks. During the last Parliament, when we debated in committee, we heard from all sorts of witnesses. Quite honestly, I would say that we did not see any significant resistance to extending benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks.

What really caught my attention was the study from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. According to that study, we collectively have the means to provide the most vulnerable workers the support they need to return to work. The Parliamentary Budget Officer stated and documented the fact that a small increase in contributions, which does not amount to much in the lives of every employer, would financially help thousands of sick workers.

We all know someone in our lives who has gone through the process of recovering or fighting cancer. We know that some cancers can be healed in 15 weeks. However, we also know that if a person has the misfortune of being diagnosed with certain other cancers like colon cancer or rectal cancer, they will need 30 to 37 weeks of financial support to get through it. That is scientifically documented. Advanced technology and science are making it possible for more and more people with cancer to recover, but they still need to take the time to go through the treatment.

When it comes to honest workers who are among the most vulnerable, those who do not have group insurance or the necessary support from their employer, it is rather disgraceful that a rich country like ours is abandoning them.

I often joke that with a quick stroke of the pen, the government could decide, by ministerial order, to extend benefits from 15 weeks to 50 or 52.

It would be humane and compassionate of the government to say, after listening to the witnesses and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that since bills have been introduced year after year for 10 years, enough is enough. It should quickly pass Bill C-215 or give it a royal recommendation in order to reassure the sick workers who are watching the debate today and who do not understand what is happening.

Personally, I wonder why the government is not taking action on this file. Members will recall that, last year, we passed Bill C-30, which contained a provision that would extend benefits from 15 weeks to 26 in 2022. Why wait so long? What is the justification?

Bill C‑30 received royal assent on June 29, 2021, which was almost a year ago, but I am still trying to convince my colleagues that this failure to move forward makes no sense. Mainly, I am trying to convince my colleagues across the way, because they are the ones who are not on board. I know the Liberal benches over there are full of compassionate MPs who care about sick people, so why on earth is cabinet so dead set against it?

I have my theories, but I wonder which lobby group has been quietly telling cabinet to put it off for as long as possible. Maybe insurance companies, maybe employers? I have no idea, but I do want to point out that employers said they were not opposed to extending the special EI benefit period.

That leaves me wondering who is behind this, because I just cannot understand why I am still here on June 13 giving a speech about a bill to protect and support our most vulnerable workers.

I want to thank my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière for not giving up and for reintroducing his bill, which will help put the spotlight on the government benches to make it clear to the Liberals that this is not a partisan issue. This bill is about humanity, compassion and understanding of the status of a worker who is seriously ill. Perhaps one day we will know who is preventing the government from moving forward more quickly.

It is supposed to come into force in the summer of 2022. According to my assistant, Charles, Quebec strawberries are in season, which means summer is here. If summer is here, why has the government not announced that it is giving royal recommendation to Bill C-215, so that we can give all our vulnerable and seriously ill workers all the support they need to fight their illness, recover and get back to work?

I appeal to the compassion and humanity of the Liberal members opposite.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not happy to rise for this bill. The previous speaker highlighted the frustration over how long this has taken, and Bill C-215 is just another attempt to bring some economic justice to this file.

Ironically, I am speaking here today because somebody is sick. I have been asked to cover off, at the last minute, our position as the New Democrats with regard to this private member's bill, which is very important.

When I first arrived in 2002, Yvon Godin of the NDP, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, was known as a champion with regard to Atlantic Canadians being taken advantage of by the employment insurance program we have in place. We fail to recognize that all Canadians, at the end of the day, are paying into a program that some will never have access to, and I have seen this over a number of generations.

It is really despicable, quite frankly, when we think about it. We pay into a program that is basically manipulated enough, predominantly against women and transitional workers, that we pay an extra tax. Oftentimes, it is the lowest earners in the system who pay this tax, and if they cannot collect it at the end of the day, then that is all it is.

This is no different from a regular insurance program we have privately. We might have it for a car, a house or anything like that. People often get very frustrated when they make an insurance claim and there is a massive deductible or when they are not eligible for some reason, such as a technical problem. However, here, our own government has crafted legislation that works against the lowest earners, in particular, with regard to collecting benefits.

The bill would rectify a problem when it comes to sick benefits. The member for Elmwood—Transcona, from the NDP, had a bill just recently on this asking for 50 weeks. Bill C-215 asks for 52 weeks, and I commend the member for bringing it forward. Again, I wish we did not have to speak about this again, but we do.

Let us remind ourselves of some of the important factors here. There is an argument for the workers: It would be a strong provision for the economy if we moved to a 52-week employment insurance program. However, let me back up. For an individual who has to apply for employment insurance, the rules have been made more difficult than ever before to get get a claim in. Then, if the claim goes in, they are just getting a portion of their income, whether they have lost their job, there has been a layoff or, in this case, they are sick.

The Liberals are finally agreeing, although it has taken a long time, to extend this to 26 weeks, which ironically is the minimum threshold necessary for cancer treatment. However, we know now that for COVID-19 and other types of long-haul diseases, it is not sufficient. When a person is trying to recover, the anxiety, depression and not knowing whether they will get healthy during that process are very serious and affect the recovery rate.

One of the things that is missed in this debate is the fact that employers do better when they know that somebody will be off for a period of time. They can then train another worker and that worker will have stability. A worker could come in for a period of almost a year, and they would contribute much more effectively to a company affected by a person who is off the job. This is incredibly important because it is about investing in training and education and getting a return, especially since right now some sectors of the economy are understaffed and are looking for workers. This would provide a sense of stability for the worker coming in.

This is similar to maternity benefits. When we extended them, it was one of the biggest achievements of Parliament. However, one of the sad things is that we did not extend the amount of money. What we did was divide up the money over a longer period of time. That is another story of how the employment insurance system really is a rip-off for workers at the end of the day. Again, here is a system that should be there for Canadians. They pay into it, yet the rate of return is poor to start with, and on top of that there are all kinds of qualifications for getting the benefit.

Coming back to Bill C-215, there is no doubt that it would provide a real benefit, because companies would have the chance to train and attract employees who could turn into long-standing employees. Often, with maternity leave, when somebody comes into a company and it grows and is successful, that person can stay in the workforce, either in a similar job or a new job in the company. We have had all kinds of success stories.

Prior to being a member of Parliament, I used to work as an employment specialist for persons with disabilities. One of the challenges we often had was that, especially with someone in a new job in the workforce, depending upon the person's disability, this could create some temporary or unintended consequences at the work site, where the person may need accommodation or the person might have another injury. There would be a break or a pause to fix the situation, or the person might have to adjust. Paying into the system and having an employer know that the person will come back healthier or better trained and that this investment has not gone away was really important, and we had over 90% success rate.

Again, this is what we are talking about, providing some sense of stability in the employment sector. What is going to come out of the next number of years is the ability to fill a number of positions in the economy, and that stability would provide an opportunity. We see a lot of movement of workers. We even see workers being poached from Canada internationally, now more than ever before. We have heard this in a lot of the testimony we have had from different types of employers across Canada. One of the things we can do is provide these types of benefits and stability, so that workers know that if they get sick or have a health issue, the government has their backs.

This is money that the person has paid into. This is not reaching back into the pocketbook or the wallet of the nation. This is money that comes off people's cheques every single day when they work, which is then given back as benefits because they paid into it.

I come from the auto sector, where these types of benefits help at times with the economy or, alternatively, if there is a retooling or a change in manufacturing. It provides stability because the workers will be coming back. There can be layoffs. What we have found is that companies have much better workforces and capabilities, which leads to better productivity in Canada. We actually compete on a better footing that way, because the company knows that it is going to get a person back after a period of time, rather than having to search for other answers.

This is what the NDP has been calling for with regard to employment insurance, which would be a much more progressive approach to employment. Sick benefits are just one of its features. This is how we should be looking at our model for employment insurance. How do we use it as a way of augmenting not only the attractiveness of being in the Canadian workforce, but also the productivity?

Extending the weeks would actually produce a better net result and provide better stability for employers who are looking to compete internationally with different manufacturing and other employment bases, knowing that strong programs exist, including day care, pharmacare and dental care coming up. All of those things are part of a company's decision to invest in Canada. Companies will inventory all those costs and benefits. I can tell colleagues that this is more attractive than some of the shortcuts we have seen when competing against the United States or Mexico, which do not have the same types of supports in place. Sometimes companies pay a little bit more up front, knowing that they are going to get a stable workforce and stable programs from the government, which will reduce their overall costs. Especially now, as we are seeing again that skilled trades and other types of occupations are being challenged internationally in whether Canadians stay or go, this is one of the things that we can actually offer as an attractive element to invest in Canada. These types of programs are a bona fide addition to a stable workforce.

I do not see why it is taking this long. I do not see how this would undermine the economy. I do not see how there is a cost to this, which is actually the revenue coming in from paying into other benefits, especially right now when we have a growing economy again. Thank goodness, we are seeing some turnaround in industries like the auto industry in Windsor here, where we have had some downtime, especially with a number of issues related to supply and demand. Investments have been basically poached from us for years because we do not have a national auto strategy. We still do not. We had a couple of victories recently, which was good, but we still need to do better on that. We are going to have increased production and increased capabilities, especially coming out of this pandemic, when we know COVID-19 has challenged so many people.

I thank the member for bringing forward this bill. It is sad that we are speaking about it again.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the member from the Bloc, as well as from the NDP, because I feel this is the next segment to the speech, after listening to the member for Windsor West talk about the fact that we have to look at the economy. This has been going on too long, and we all know that.

I look at my years in the public service, especially as a constituency assistant working for Joe Preston in Elgin—Middlesex—London. Those 11 years of experience have given me the customer service that is so important for Canadians, especially when they are in need. One of the biggest gaps I saw was exactly what we are talking about today. It is when sickness benefits stop and people are expected to go back to work.

Building on what my colleagues previously spoke about, I want to talk about why this is important. This is something that I see everybody in the chamber does understand. I know there is compassion for workers. When they need to take time off, how can the Government of Canada be there to assist? How can we make sure that our choices in policy are going to be good economic policies for our future?

I want to turn to an evaluation that was done of the employment insurance sickness benefits. It is dated April 2022. This evaluation pulled out three key findings, and one of them was about the duration of benefits. I will quote from the results:

...the duration of the benefits is adequate for most claimants, but those with severe and/or long-term illnesses are more likely to use the full 15 weeks of sickness benefits and remain sick hereafter

there has been significant growth in claims for the EI Sickness benefits nationally since 2000....

These are things that we need to take into consideration. Yes, it may be something minor or perhaps somebody is sick. I know there is a benefit where, if people have a sick child, they can take up to 35 weeks. What can we do for that individual? Who is the employee who needs to take time off work as well?

Right now, employees can get only up to 15 weeks, but let us say it is someone like our wonderful Speaker who just had to take a few weeks off himself to get his heart looked at. We see the same things with many Canadians who, unfortunately, do not have that support. Employment insurance is the backup plan. There are about 45% of Canadians who have a backup plan. What happens when employment insurance is not there? Many Canadians have to use other insurance first before they go on EI sick benefits, but what happens to those Canadians who do not have those other benefits? Right now, if they are sick, they get 15 weeks. Let us think about a person who has cardiovascular disease, who has cancer, who has ongoing injuries or who is in a motor vehicle accident. We have seen some horrific things happen and there is so much repair that needs to be done there as well.

We have all noted how COVID caused a lot of problems when it comes to mental health. This is something that everybody in the chamber can agree on. As we are transitioning from the pandemic and being locked down for two years, we are seeing a lot of issues, so we need to be compassionate on this.

The history of sickness benefits goes back to 1971, when they were introduced. It has been 51 years and it is time to get this fixed, to come up to our standards in 2022. We have seen changes to the program. Back in 1990, we recognized that women who go on maternity leave sometimes require bed rest. The government responded to that by putting in a combination of both sickness and maternity benefits. I think of some other great things that were done for self-employed individuals who wanted to have these types of benefits and did not have private insurance. They can now get employment insurance sickness benefits through the Government of Canada. That is really important. We know that a number of years ago, there was a reduction in hours, from 700 hours down to 600 hours. We have seen, over the last 51 years, that the program has changed, but we need to continue to modify it to ensure that we get things done right.

I am really proud of the bill that my colleague has put forward to expand the sickness benefit from 15 weeks up to 52 weeks. This is a really great thing for people, like I said, who have cancer, who are perhaps having surgery this month, but next month may have to deal with chemotherapy and radiation. Perhaps after that, there will be different things that need to be done too. Therefore, the 15 weeks many times do not provide enough time.

Referring back to this evaluation done in April 2022, I want to talk about a statistic. Of the people who were surveyed, 45% did not return to work by the time they were supposed to, so there are issues here. About 55% of respondents who had exhausted their claims were able to return to work, but there is a whole gap of people who were not able to go back to work.

The average length of treatment for things such as breast and colon cancer, two of the most commonly diagnosed cancers, ranges anywhere from 26 weeks to 37 weeks. Currently, if we are looking at the benefits from the Government of Canada, one would be looking at a minimum of 11 weeks not paid. Members should think about that, think about the stress a person is already going through, as well as the stress on the family. One thing the Government of Canada can do is help take away some of that financial stress. We know this is not going to make people rich. This is not a program that makes people rich, but it does provide some benefits to help people during those difficult times. Taking that 55% of a person's earnings and increasing it over a time span of 52 weeks would be much more beneficial.

These are the things that I think it is really important to look at. One of the things we have to note is that we are asking this of the government, because this needs to come with a royal recommendation. We do need to spend money. We know from the last Parliament, from the discussions today and from the study that was just done, which I was just referring to, that the government knows there is a problem, so let us find the solution.

This is why I am saying to the government that all parties and experts are onside here. We know everybody is rowing in the same direction. We want to see the employment insurance benefits for sickness increased. We all want to see that. The population needs it. There is 55% of the population that does not have additional benefits, so we need to be there for them.

We have taken into consideration things that people may be concerned with, and there are ways of dealing with them. I know some people will say there are possibilities of fraud. Over the last number of years, we have not been requesting medical certificates through employment insurance. This is a simple solution that we can put back in to help take some of those concerns away. We could go back and ask for a medical note. People can work with their physicians to ensure they get the time off they need.

Both the Bloc and the NDP had bills like this, so we know they are in favour. We know that in the House of Commons, the majority of members are in favour. This is where we are looking for royal recommendation and this is where the support from the government is really needed. We need additional funds to increase this from 26 weeks to 52 weeks, the number of weeks in the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, effective July 1, 2022. That is what we are asking for. This is about compassion. It is about helping Canadians when they really need it.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has spoken about this. Yes, this would be a cost to the government, but as the speaker previous to me from the NDP noted, this is good for the economy. We hear all Canadians, not only employees but also the employers, saying that this is something we should be doing.

I want to reflect on those people who come to the office to say they have exhausted their benefits but cannot go back to work. Many people do try to go back to work. There are a lot of financial concerns. As I indicated, people are receiving only 55% of their salary in the first place, so all of the bills can and will continue to pile up. Having the benefit available for a longer period of time is really positive, so let us do that.

As we are looking at this, we need to look at the families and individuals under financial stress. This is one way of helping them out during this very critical time. Increasing the employment insurance benefits to 52 weeks would give people hope. It would give them time to heal and repair. A lot of times, people are rushing back to work. In some cases, their jobs cannot be modified to welcome them back, so sometimes people cannot return to work.

We need to be compassionate and do what is right for Canadians. I am asking for everybody's support on this important bill, Bill C-215.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my hon. colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière for his bill seeking to make changes to EI.

I am really happy to be speaking to this bill today, and I have enjoyed the debate because my colleagues from Salaberry—Suroît, Windsor West and Elgin—Middlesex—London have brought forward a lot of really good points. I think that speaks to the bill, that we have a lot of people speaking about the need for employment insurance reform and that members are bringing forward various examples.

What I would like to speak to, though, is what we have been doing in employment insurance reform and then speak to what I have heard today in debate.

On June 29, 2021, Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, contained the provisions to amend the EI sickness benefit to bring it from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. It received royal assent back in June of last year and will go into effect this summer, when we will move from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. We did this because we recognized that the need for increased weeks of employment insurance is sometimes necessary for those who are sick.

Last summer, the minister joined the commissioners of the Canadian Employment Insurance Commission to launch the first phase of a two-year consultation on the future of the EI program. To reach as many Canadians as possible, the minister asked her department to launch a consultation portal, which included an online survey, where all interested Canadians could share their views. The survey was open from August 6 to November 19 last year and drew more than 1,900 responses. Approximately 60 written submissions came from a cross-section of labour, employer and other groups. The minister personally attended many of the 10 national and 11 regional round tables to hear feedback on how the EI program can better serve Canadians. Input was received from over 200 stakeholders across the country, including employer and employee organizations, unions, academics, self-employed worker and gig worker associations, parents and family associations and health organizations, to name a few.

The overarching goal is to bring forward a vision for a new and modern El system that is simpler and more responsive to the needs of workers and employers. The first round of the consultations focused on key priorities related to improving access to El, including how to address the temporary emergency measures that will expire this fall. We are also examining whether El meets the evolving and diverse needs of Canadian families. As we have heard today in some of the debate, it seems there are some areas that we still need to look at.

For example, how do we make maternity and parental benefits more flexible and more inclusive for adoptive parents? There are differing views, obviously, and I know that the minister has found unanimous commitment on the part of both employer and employee representatives to develop a modern El program that is resilient, accessible, adequate and financially sustainable. The government is planning a second phase of round table consultations by summer.

Aside from the information, advice and recommendations from the round tables and online consultation, there are several other reviews, evaluations and reports available. In particular, I want to highlight the excellent work done in 2021 by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which included 20 recommendations on modernizing the El program.

As we have heard, the El program has been a crucial part of Canada's social safety net since 1940. As we also heard today, we obviously need to get this right. My colleagues talked a little about severe illnesses, for instance, the case of cancer. We never want someone to feel like they have to go back to work if they are ill.

When someone has cancer, we want them to focus on fighting the disease and getting better. We do not want them worrying about paying their rent or buying groceries, or what they are going to do if they do not have insurance.

I was told about some such cases in my riding, and that included friends of mine. I have a friend who is in the restaurant business and he had prostate cancer when he was 40 years old.

He did not have private insurance. He came to speak to us and was very frank. Instead of focusing on his treatments, he worried about losing his home and not being able to take care of his children. He spoke about what he called the business of cancer, something we never really think about. We think about the person receiving treatment, about them winning the fight against cancer, but we do not think about the human side and the financial aspects of this fight, or of its impact on the family.

Today, I listened to my colleagues from Salaberry—Suroît, Windsor West and Elgin—Middlesex—London, who talked about similar cases. Some people need more than 15 weeks, others more than 26 weeks. That is why we held consultations.

When we debate private members' bills, I always listen to the various positions and points being raised. We had a really good debate this morning, and I want to again commend my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière for his Bill C‑215.

I think, when we are debating legislation, what is really important is to listen to all of our colleagues across the way. This was a really good debate where examples clearly demonstrated that 26 weeks may not be enough and we might need more.

I know that a previous piece of legislation, very similar to this one, did require royal recommendation. I believe, in this case, it will require that as well. I believe this piece of legislation has the support of the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc at the moment. I do not know who on my side is supporting it because it is a private member's bill. I think members brought forward very interesting arguments as to why we need to take a look at this and see if 26 weeks is sufficient.

I have not made up my mind, and I am sure there are people behind me or in the lobby who are saying that I am at it again, but I have not made up my mind on whether I will support this bill at second reading to go to committee. I think some interesting arguments have definitely been presented today.

The bill will likely need to address specific cases, such as cancer or severe illness, that require more weeks of benefits for those who need them. I know that not all Canadians have access to private or employer-provided insurance.

I think that is something that must—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I must interrupt and ask the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis to step outside the House to take his call.

I will remind members that they cannot be on the phone in the House. I encourage them to step out of the chamber if they need to use the phone, because we should not be hearing their conversations in here.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Charles‑LeMoyne.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

As I was saying, I think it would be a good idea to revisit our EI program. I know the minister has done research and held public consultations and will continue to do so.

Bill C‑215 needs royal assent to be implemented. When it comes up for voting this Wednesday, we will see what happens.

I would like to once again thank my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière for his bill and all my colleagues who took part in the debates in the House. I think they raised some good points, very specific and useful points, to persuade all members to support Bill C‑215.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, since parliamentary life can be full of surprises, I rise somewhat unexpectedly to talk about Bill C-215.

I listened attentively to the speech by my colleague from Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, who presented a series of arguments in favour of the bill. The problem is that her government is currently resisting. We hope that the hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne will be sort of a Trojan horse and make sure that the truth about this issue gets back to the caucus and the Prime Minister’s Office.

Bill C-215 amends the Employment Insurance Act to increase from 15 to 52 the maximum number of weeks for which benefits can be paid because of illness, injury or quarantine. This is our umpteenth attempt. For two decades, the Bloc Québécois has been working on this, and asking that the number of weeks of benefits be increased from 15 to 50. Our reasoning is still the same.

In December 2019, my leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, and my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville spoke out publicly to support the request of two cancer survivors, Émilie Sansfaçon and Marie-Hélène Dubé, and their families, who have been fighting for years to get the federal government to make the necessary amendments to the special benefits program and increase the duration of benefits from 15 to 50 weeks.

Unfortunately, Émilie died on November 5, 2020, at the young age of 31, leaving behind her spouse, her two children, her mother, her mother-in-law and, of course, her father, Louis Sansfaçon. Louis Sansfaçon was a candidate for the Bloc Québécois in the last election, and I commend his courage and resilience in this ongoing, just struggle. Émilie did not live long enough to see the end of her fight to extend the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50, despite a meeting with Prime Minister Trudeau. I would actually like to give a shout-out to the Prime Minister, since we just learned that he has COVID-19, and I wish him a speedy recovery.

Émilie met with the Prime Minister to discuss this motion. However, the government still has not increased the duration of EI sickness benefits. That is why my esteemed colleague from Salaberry—Suroît, who spoke earlier, dedicated this bill, which was introduced in the last Parliament, to Émilie Sansfaçon.

Let us be clear: From Johanne Deschamps, a former Bloc member for Laurentides—Labelle, to my colleagues from Salaberry—Suroît and Thérèse-De Blainville, the Bloc Québécois has always fought to improve the EI system, including creating an independent fund, eliminating the spring gap, improving access to regular benefits, ending the classification of unemployed workers based on the claims submitted to the program, and increasing all types of benefits.

The special EI benefit for serious illnesses is totally absurd when you think about it, or when you know a person with a serious illness such as cancer or ALS. Obviously, with the COVID-19 crisis, the public coffers are not as full as they could be. This is not an easy task, and there is little leeway. However, it is precisely this crisis that made many people understand the importance of having a good employment insurance program, since it is an economic stabilizer.

In fact, when he testified before the Standing Committee on Finance, the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen S. Poloz, admitted, when questioned by the Bloc, that employment insurance was an important economic stabilizer and that Canada would stand up far better to the crisis if more people were covered. That is saying something. The Bloc asked, “Since employment insurance is an automatic stabilizer of the economy, in your opinion, wouldn’t the economy be more stable in a time of crisis if the system covered more workers?” Mr. Poloz replied, “Certainly.” What more do we need?

We know that the labour market has changed considerably since special sickness benefits were established in 1971. It has evolved significantly. Needs are now more urgent, especially when it comes to work-life balance. If a worker is laid off, they may be entitled to regular EI benefits. If they have a child, they may be entitled to maternity or parental leave. However, if they find out they have a serious illness that requires frequent or prolonged leave, they will get the same number of weeks of benefits as a worker who has to take leave for a broken bone. Something is wrong here. This makes no sense.

Illness involves the involuntary component of the purpose of the regular benefits program. Obviously, no one wants to get sick or be diagnosed with cancer. I say cancer, but it could be any long-term chronic illness. Cancer is a prime example because it affects almost everyone. I think that one out of three Canadians are at risk of getting cancer.

A person who receives news like that, which is already difficult psychologically, needs several weeks simply to realize what is happening and what it means. In fact, in an interview, our brave Émilie said that, when she was diagnosed for the second time, what first came to mind was her financial situation, not the fact that she would have to go back to chemotherapy. We can imagine how she felt. She immediately wondered how she would manage to survive during this long period of treatment.

We are not in the United States. In Canada, we want to help people and that is our mindset here in the House.

Marie-Hélène Dubé, the cancer survivor who fought alongside Ms. Sansfaçon, explained her difficult journey. She said, “I had to take out several mortgages on my house and postpone the surgery for my third cancer because I had not yet worked the 630 hours I needed to be entitled to 15 weeks of benefits. This had an impact on my remission. I was exhausted when I finally went in for surgery. I had several complications. Fortunately, I had the support of my boss, and I had a house. Someone who rents would find themselves out in the street”.

In addition to undergoing treatment, she had to take out another mortgage on her house. That is not easy. The financial stress had an impact on her illness. As my hon. colleague from Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne said earlier, someone who rents would end up in the street.

Another worker, William Morissette, had a medical certificate stating that he could return to work in a year, after undergoing an ostomy to treat his colon cancer. That is a typical case. Many people will heal or go into remission and be able to go back to work after a recovery period.

I also want to note that, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, the employment insurance power must be interpreted generously. This is what it said in a 2008 case: “Its objectives are not only to remedy the poverty caused by unemployment, but also to maintain the ties between unemployed persons and the labour market.”

As I mentioned earlier, I hope that my colleagues across the aisle will do the same so that, together, we can make this a non-partisan issue for Quebeckers and Canadians.

In conclusion, in honour of all viewers who are seriously ill or who know someone who is, the Bloc Québécois and I will continue this just and necessary fight and will vote in favour of this bill.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all of my colleagues in the House who took part in the debate on Bill C-215 and whose sensitivity and unparalleled sense of duty enabled them to recognize the urgent need to take action and offer proper financial support to people who are recovering from a serious illness such as cancer. We are now at a crossroads with Bill C‑215.

All of the members in the House understand the importance of this bill and of the second reading vote that will allow a committee to study the technical aspect of the royal recommendation required under our parliamentary procedures for a bill that has financial implications for the government.

It is far too easy for a government to shelve a private member's bill. The current rules water down the impact of members' work, even if the House votes for positive initiatives that are necessary for Canadians.

I realize this is a whole other debate, but pointing it out will give us a chance to think about it and change things in the House for the collective good. The House must draft acts and regulations with a view to enhancing Canadians' lives and well-being.

It is our duty as members to fix this provision of the employment insurance program that has existed for decades. The members' will should lead to concrete results. That is the very basis of our Canadian democracy.

When our work bears fruit, it gives hope and dignity to those who are held back a serious illness. At this stage, I wonder whether my Liberal colleagues are aware that obtaining the royal recommendation and increasing the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits from 15 to 52 depends on their good faith.

A study in committee would surely yield the same conclusions as the last one, but that is not what I am asking for here, since illnesses such as cancer do not wait. I hope that the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance will take responsibility and execute the will of the House by granting a royal recommendation to Bill C‑215.

Right now, millions of Canadians are struggling to make ends meet in the face of soaring prices on necessities like food, housing and transportation. Now more than ever, sick people receiving medical treatment or recovering from illness need to know that they can count on their government for support.

Against the expectations of my hon. colleagues, who already know that we need to act, I call upon the Prime Minister and his right-hand woman, the Minister of Finance, to show compassion by making a concrete gesture that will lead to the passage of this bill. We have a social responsibility to the people we hold dear, the people we love, the people who gave us life, in the case of our parents. They deserve our support so they can get well with guaranteed financial security at the low cost of one cup of coffee a month, as I have said in the House before.

Let us hope that this bill goes in the right direction.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

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

The hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 15, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Sitting Suspended

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The House will now suspend to the call of the Chair.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:53 a.m.)

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)