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.

Sitting Resumed

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

I want to speak today in solidarity with all the honest, law-abiding people in Lévis—Lotbinière who legally own guns for reasons other than committing violent crimes.

My colleagues will no doubt understand that I have come here to defend honest hunters and shooters, farmers, and collectors who own guns passed down from one generation to another.

The absurd thing about the Liberal government is that their bills miss their targets most of the time—that is probably a bad pun—as does their budget, for that matter.

How will legalizing drugs prevent or reduce crime? That is utter nonsense. How can anyone believe that restricting the use of certain registered and legal weapons is going to reduce the same criminal activity that continues to rise because of bad Liberal decisions?

The solution to the ever-increasing crime is quite simple, and it is the same for everything else that has not worked in our country since 2015. We are headed straight for a cliff because the Liberals are in power and they are making bad decisions.

The goal of the new Liberal amendments to Bill C‑21 is not to protect us, but to score political points and instill a false sense of security in the population. The facts prove otherwise and nothing will change.

I would like to talk about academic and government stakeholders, such as Dr. Caillin Langmann, assistant clinical professor at McMaster University. He stated that available research has demonstrated that the proposed ban on handguns and semi-automatic weapons would not reduce the rates of homicide and mass homicide.

Someone who wants to inflict harm has the imagination and means to do so. What causes an individual to commit the irreparable quite often begins with the family violence that children witness. These children will become uncontrollable adults who abuse drugs that have become legal and who commit increasingly serious crimes.

The rehabilitation system for these individuals is not working and the Liberal Party encourages this scourge through bad policies and complacency. As proof, the Liberal Party's catch-and-release policies are not working. After eight years of Liberal governance, violent crimes have increased by 32% and gang-related homicides have doubled.

Rather than cracking down on the illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, the Prime Minister is working to take hunting rifles away from law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous peoples.

Let us be clear. The Liberals' new definition is the same as the old one. The commonly used hunting firearms targeted by the Liberals in the fall will likely be added to the ban by the new Liberal firearms advisory panel.

Let there be no mistake. There is nothing new in the amendments proposed by the Liberals. They have just wrapped the initial amendments up in a new package. Hunters, farmers and indigenous peoples are not naive, and neither are the Conservatives. The Conservatives do not support taking guns away from law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous peoples. When the Liberals say that they are banning so-called assault-style firearms, they really mean that they are banning hunting rifles. The Prime Minister even admitted as much a few months ago.

No one believes that the government is going to reduce violent crime across the country by going after hunters and legitimate hunting rifles. That is part of the Liberal government's plan to distract Canadians from the real issues our country is facing and to divide them.

For eight years now, have the Liberals been aware that they are making life easier for violent criminals by repealing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes with legislation stemming from Bill C‑5?

Are the Liberals aware that they are making it easier for violent criminals to get bail with legislation stemming from Bill C‑75?

Are the Liberals aware that they are making life easier for violent criminals by not stopping the flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border?

Conservatives support common-sense gun policies, policies that will stop dangerous criminals from getting guns. That is why a Conservative government will invest in policing and securing our borders rather than spending billions of dollars confiscating guns from farmers, hunters, indigenous people and law-abiding Canadians.

Let us not be fooled. The Liberals are the champions of wishful thinking. The Liberals are also the champions of empty gestures, empty words and wasting our hard-earned money.

Quality of life has gone down considerably in Canada in the past eight years in every area of daily life and not just because of the increasing crime rate, which, again, jumped by 32%. When we look at the facts, the current situation and the numbers, we see that this is no longer working. One just needs to look at the number of available jobs, the backlog in immigration cases, the applications for temporary foreign workers that are blocked and have caused businesses back home such as Olymel to shut down.

I am thinking about the Liberals' rejection of my Bill C‑215, which sought to promote life by allowing people with a serious disease such as cancer to be entitled to 52 weeks of employment insurance to get back on their feet. I am thinking about all these young people to whom the Liberal Party is offering addiction to dangerous substances as a life work; as we all know, using hard drugs brings more problems. That is obvious and it only makes sense to acknowledge it.

I have a hard time seeing how Bill C‑21 will achieve the Liberal Party's murky goal of lowering the crime rate and making our streets safer.

In closing, in Lévis—Lotbinière, the majority of us are responsible, law-abiding people. More than ever, we need a return to a Conservative government to restore order in our country and in our politics, and to put money back in our pockets.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, does my colleague have anything to say about Bill C‑215 on employment insurance? The government refused to recommend this bill for royal assent even though it would have provided welcome assistance to workers struggling with serious health problems. It refused to increase the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits from 26 to 52. Is this important to the member?

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the government members' humanity and compassion. I am asking them to set aside all partisanship and to give royal recommendation to Bill C-215 on EI sickness benefits.

As we speak, there are men and women who are sick and who need these extended benefits. The House voted unanimously to extend the benefits. The majority of MPs voted in favour of the bill. All we are waiting for now is royal recommendation. Will the government members give royal recommendation to the bill?

Employment Insurance Act

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

Madam Speaker, now the die is cast. After a year and a half of work, we are the end of the process with my Bill C‑215.

I want to thank everyone who contributed from near or far at every stage of the bill and who participated in the deliberations on this important issue of ensuring the financial security of people living with a serious illness requiring a period of convalescence that goes beyond the 26 weeks being offered.

I would have liked to see in yesterday's budget an openness by the Liberal government to help seriously ill workers who are asking for EI benefits for a period that goes beyond the 26 weeks that were hard-won in December.

That being said, we have made progress in the debate on this social security issue that is important to all Canadians. I greatly resent the requirement to obtain royal recommendation from the government, one that has blocked the wishes and a majority vote of the House in favour of Bill C‑215. My thoughts are with all those who have a serious illness who will not get this financial help that would have given them a little more room to breathe.

Every year we lose special people to cancer. I would be remiss if I did not mention my friend and neighbour Roger Flamand, who has cancer. Roger is fighting for his life right now, surrounded by his wife Lorraine, his daughters Annie and Marie-Josée and his entire family.

With courage and resilience, Roger is going through a difficult time, and his qualities as a fair, helpful and generous man are serving him well during this trial. Family, friends and neighbours, above all neighbours, are supporting him day after day. Our thoughts and prayers are with him as he continues his personal journey with respect and compassion.

I would like to personally address the man who was the very best neighbour for 50 years. I remember the warm summer nights when Roger and my father Armand had long conversations. What a beautiful and close friendship they had. It was really heartwarming to see them.

When my father passed away, Roger often told me that he considered Armand, my father, to be like a second father. This evening, I can tell him that my father considered him to be one of his sons. Roger's presence will always be a source of comfort and solace. On behalf of Chantal, my children and myself, I thank him for being a part of our lives. We love him dearly.

With that, I will conclude the debate.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too will speak to Bill C‑215, which is being debated today in the House.

Bill C‑215 seeks to make a change to employment insurance. I am getting tired of having debates on employment insurance. I wonder why we are talking about employment insurance in the Canadian federal Parliament.

In 1867, when Canada was founded, there was a division of powers set up. The federal government took care of the money, the army, international border contacts and customs, but all the social affairs fell under the responsibility of the provinces. The reason employment insurance is a federal jurisdiction is that someone pulled a fast one in 1940. The economic crisis in 1929 was still having ill effects, the Second World War had just started and, in the meantime, there was a Liberal premier in Quebec, Mr. Godbout, who did not necessarily want independence for Quebec and let it drop. That is why the federal government is responsible for employment insurance today.

I would like to use an analogy about the federal government. I have a five-year-old son. Sometimes when a few children are playing together, we often see one of them go over to a friend who is playing with toys and snatch the toy away from them. He will go over to another friend who is playing with a toy and snatch that away. He will want all the toys that his friends are playing with. He will take them all, he will not be able to hold on to any more toys, but he will still try to take some more. That is classic behaviour. Eventually, the toys will quite simply gather dust. He will no longer play or be interested in them.

That is more or less how the federal government operates. It tries to take on all the responsibilities, keeps taking a few more here and there, but then neglects them. That is happening with EI.

Employment insurance is not working. The federal government is not working, and I believe that there is no desire to see it working. That is sad.

That is not just for employment insurance; there have been problems with passports and the Phoenix pay system. The problems keep piling up. This sort of thing is always happening with the federal government, but that does not stop it from wanting even more responsibility. It tries to tell us how we should be running our hospitals. It decides to launch all kinds of programs that it should not be launching. Meanwhile, the EI system is not working. The government is not carrying out the reform that people have been calling for for years.

That is unfortunate, because every time there is an election the Liberals promise to reform the EI system. They hold consultations and then more consultations and in the end they do nothing to reform the system.

As a result, right now, only about half of unemployed workers are covered. That means that one out of every two people who lose their job is not covered by EI even though it is an insurance plan and they should be eligible. The federal government was even siphoning money off the fund, which ran surpluses for years. From 1996 to 2009, $60 billion were siphoned off the EI fund. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives put unemployed workers' money directly into their pockets and left workers in the lurch.

Today we are talking about Bill C‑215, which seeks to amend employment insurance, more specifically sick leave. Sick leave is another thing that is not working. A person who gets sick gets only 15 weeks and that is it. It is a season, nothing more. They can spend the summer recovering, but if they are not better at the end of the summer, then they do not get any more money.

It is sad because if someone loses their job and is the one person in two who is covered, they can usually get quite a few weeks of benefits, maybe even up to 50 weeks. I do not remember exactly how many weeks are available these days, but it is somewhere around there. A person can go about a year with that. However, if that person gets cancer and has to stop working, they are entitled to only 15 weeks. That is an inequity that does not work. The purpose of Bill C‑215 is to correct this inequity. This is not the first crack at this.

My colleague, the member for Salaberry—Suroît, introduced a bill in the House during the last Parliament to fix this. In her case, it was not about getting to 52 weeks, it was about going from 15 weeks to 50 weeks. If it were 52 weeks, that would be even better. We could applaud that. We support this initiative, obviously.

However, this shows how hard she worked at the time. Her bill was even known as the Émilie Sansfaçon act. Émilie Sansfaçon was a woman who was on sick leave. It is called a leave of absence, but really, it is a forced resignation due to illness. She was on EI for too short a time and eventually passed away. She did not live to see Bill C-265, introduced by my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît, pass.

It is sad, because her father, who supported the Bloc Québécois, later ran for the Bloc Québécois and hoped that this bill would eventually pass. My colleague from Salaberry—Suroît worked hard. The bill passed first and second reading, was sent to committee and returned to the House for third reading. It went through all the stages. What was missing? Royal assent was missing. It just needed the government to say yes, nothing else.

That did not happen, which is sad. The Senate could have helped, too. It is sad, especially when we look at all the people who have supported this over the years. My colleague from Salaberry—Suroît, who introduced the bill, was not the first to come up with this idea. Yves Lessard, a Bloc Québécois member for the Belœil region, had already introduced a similar bill. Paul Crête, a Bloc Québécois member for the Bas-du-Fleuve region, had also already tabled a bill on this subject. Robert Carrier, a Bloc Québécois member for the Laval region, had already introduced a bill on this subject. Jean-François Fortin, a member of Parliament from eastern Quebec, had also introduced a bill on this subject.

The Bloc Québécois has repeatedly called for this problem to be fixed, for sick leave to be given to people who fall ill and for them to be supported during this difficult time. It is not a luxury for them to be able to eat, pay their rent and receive 50% of their pay, if not less, because it is 50% of the eligible amount. All we have been asking for is support to get them through a difficult time. By not giving them the money they need to heal, the government is adding to the stress they are under. It is sad.

I spoke about the members of the Bloc Québécois who worked on this, namely MPs Lessard, Crête, Carrier and Fortin, but there were also members from other parties. I must admit that we are not the only ones who had this idea. I could talk about the NDP MP Dawn Black, who introduced a bill three times to remedy the problem with sickness benefits and to provide more support for these workers. There was Fin Donnelly, a member who introduced a bill to resolve the issue four times. The next person that I name should certainly help the government understand that it needs to support this bill. Denis Coderre, a Liberal Party MP, once introduced a bill to resolve the issue with sickness benefits.

It is fascinating to see that members from all political parties have introduced bills year after year. This has been going on for what must be over 20 years now, maybe even 30. This is a problem that members are trying to solve. Unfortunately, they are not succeeding, either because their bills do not receive royal assent or because the party in power decides not to support them.

What we have now is a bill introduced by the member for Lévis—Lotbinière. It is important to highlight that it is his bill. We are at a point where this is coming from a Conservative member. We have reached a point where the Conservatives are also saying that the problem must be fixed. When everyone says that the problem must be fixed, there is no reason why it should not be fixed. It would be truly sad if the Liberals did not want to fix it. That would make the Liberals look more right wing than the Conservatives, more heartless than the Conservatives. I find that hard to believe. I hope that is not what happens.

Deep down, no one wants to leave sick people in the lurch. No one thinks it is okay for sick people to be in a position where they cannot afford to buy food, pay for groceries, be able to take the transportation they need, put gas—or electricity, I hope soon—in their car, so they can get where they need to go to receive care. It is sad. I hope that once the debate on Bill C‑215 is over, things will not end there. I hope we will finally find a solution and manage to do something positive for these people.

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

Madam Speaker, I wanted to speak to Bill C-215, sponsored by my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière, because I have had experience with some really difficult situations involving the duration of EI sickness benefits. The people I know, as well as the people who came to my office, did not ask to have to deal with these terrible illnesses one day. I am mainly going to speak about cancer because that is what most of these people were dealing with.

These people never expected that one day, they might have to choose between focusing their full attention on healing and slowly dying while trying to heal because they could no longer afford their treatment. For some, the treatments are very long.

I was listening to the speech given by my colleague, who had a lot of empathy and compassion for people in such situations. Unfortunately, the government could have granted a royal recommendation and allowed this bill to be voted on so it could finally be passed after many years of trying. I will have the opportunity to speak to that in my speech.

The fight to help people with these serious illnesses get access to money from employment insurance has been going on for years. Most of these people contributed their entire lives to a system that is supposed to be there to protect them. Unfortunately, when the time comes for some people to be able to benefit from it, the system simply does not meet their expectations.

I wanted to commend my Bloc Québécois colleague from Salaberry—Suroît, because she has worked very hard on this file. She talked about Normand Chevalier, who was listening to her speech and may have been patient enough to listen to the other parliamentarians until my speech. I want to say hello to him. I can tell him that there are people working very hard on this issue, as my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière has been doing ever since he had the opportunity to introduce this bill. There are people working very hard to change things. Unfortunately, as we have seen, things are not changing.

I am directly and indirectly involved in the Relay for Life. Every time I participate in a Relay for Life event, I am always amazed to see that a town as small as Plessisville has the largest Relay for Life in Canada. This shows how willing people are to support cancer patients and survivors.

It is heartbreaking to walk the Relay for Life route and see the thousands of little luminaries lit for people who have cancer or survived cancer, or for families and people who have lost a loved one to cancer. Everyone should come to Plessisville to see how big this event really is. Luminaries line the entire two-kilometre route, creating a mosaic of light, and each and every one of those luminaries is dedicated to someone. How many of these people had to make a difficult choice between treatments and work?

The answer is too many. I do not want to get into a fight over numbers. We do not need to argue about whether it is 23% or 30%. Either way, it is too much. Nobody knows how long treatment will take. Nobody knows how to cure each of these diseases. Nobody knows how each person is going to respond to treatment.

One thing is certain. These people are forced to choose between devoting themselves 100% to their recovery or devoting themselves 50% to their recovery and 50% to their work, because they have no income and they cannot go through such an ordeal without income. This can affect young people, but it often affects women or men, mothers or fathers. It can affect people who have a family to support, whether they are men or women. There are not many Quebeckers or Canadians who can afford to go an entire year without earning a cent.

That is why I think the right thing to do would have been for all parliamentarians to finally pass Bill C-215. The government had promised on several occasions to agree to this request, which came in particular from two people whom I would like to salute today.

Marie‑Hélène Dubé started a petition that was presented here in the House. It was signed by over 600,000 people and calls on parliamentarians to set aside their differences and partisanship and finally recognize the needs of people with cancer who have to undergo treatment so that they can focus on getting well. Ms. Dubé has helped draft many bills. She herself has had cancer several times and she has never given up, but I think that she is a bit discouraged that parliamentarians have not yet found a solution. I have never spoken to her, but I saw her in the media. I looked at her website. I saw everything she has been doing to try to convince parliamentarians.

There is always a parliamentarian who is ready to take up the torch. When one party is unable to introduce the bill because of the way the lottery draw for private members' bills goes, someone else takes up the torch. This time, it was my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière. He and the member for Salaberry—Suroît both worked very hard on this bill. I want to recognize the work of Ms. Dubé, who has not given up, even though she may be a bit discouraged. Today, I read her most recent post on the website 15weeks.ca. I will read it even though it is not that recent.

We are currently on the 14th bill to amend the act to increase benefits to more than 50 weeks, after 13 years of vigorous campaigning. If you can believe it, this campaign that I have been waging by myself since 2009 has been going on so long that I have qualified for my first FADOQ card. That's crazy! I was 38 years old when I gathered the first of the 619,000 signatures… I am honestly so exhausted, but I could never abandon you.

My colleagues are applauding her and I think she deserves it.

How far will we have to go? How long will we have to wait? There have been committee studies and unanimous motions adopted in the House, where all parliamentarians said they agree with the principle of 50 weeks. However, no government has made a move to change things. It is not a matter of money, because we can make it happen by using the EI fund. It is not a matter of politics, because everyone knows someone, like a family member or a friend of a friend, who has had to go through a difficult situation because of EI benefits.

I know there is not much time left, about 15 minutes, but perhaps someone on the government side will hear this final appeal from Ms. Dubé, from my colleagues and from all those who have championed this bill and its previous versions. I hope that the bill will finally receive a royal recommendation so that these people can focus on their recovery. It will send a message of hope to their loved ones. Let us send hope to all those who have had this disease and survived and to the many others who will one day have to deal with this terrible disease.

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

Noted, Madam Speaker.

I know that Mr. Chevalier is listening to me, because I promised to speak on his behalf in the House of Commons. There is at least one person listening to my speech tonight. Mr. Chevalier asked me to speak on his behalf because this makes no sense. It has been documented that the government can afford to provide 26 and 52 weeks of benefits to workers who are sick. Our critic on this issue, the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, has said as much, and she is calling for it in committee.

Mr. Chevalier was telling me that he may be reaching retirement and that he has no intention of claiming his pension or his provincial plan benefits because he wants to keep working. There is a shortage of drivers, so he wants to stay on. However, the government is giving him a hard time and messing up his plans because it is not giving him an incentive to return to the workforce.

He told me that he is going to fight his illness and manage on his own, because he has always been self-reliant. It is important for everyone to know that this government had the means and could have done it. This could have been included in the budget. There are times when ministers get it wrong. The minister got it wrong by increasing the benefit period from 15 to 26 weeks.

Bill C‑215, which we are debating this evening and was introduced by the member for Lévis—Lotbinière, is a commendable bill that should make sense and could have been accepted and passed a long time ago.

Every member of the House, even on the government side, gets phone calls like the one I received from Mr. Chevalier. People do not understand why the government has not done something meaningful to encourage sick workers to get through their illness with dignity.

Today, I am pleased to be the voice of Mr. Chevalier, but I know that there are other Mr. Chevaliers in every riding who would have liked to congratulate the government for standing by them, as it promised, by helping sick workers recover with dignity and fight their illness without worrying. We know that EI sickness benefits do not cover 100% of a person's income, they cover 55%. That is not a lot. People already do their part, on top of all the expenses they have to cover to go see specialists.

In addition to fighting their illness, people like Mr. Chevalier who live in a rural area have to find transportation and pay someone to bring them to their appointments. I do not know whether my colleagues are aware, but people do not feel all that well after undergoing a radiation treatment. They need support. All of that costs money. In addition to having just 55% of his salary for 15 weeks, Mr. Chevalier had to use what little he had in his pocket to pay for all his treatment-related costs.

Mr. Chevalier told me today that he is going to have to move. He cannot afford his rent for the coming months. He is lucky that his landlord has a heart, unlike this government. The landlord let him out of his lease so that he could go live somewhere else where the rent is cheaper. Quite frankly, Mr. Chevalier does not have any other income. The only other option he has is to apply for social assistance.

What the government is telling this worker, who is in his sixties and who worked and paid into the system his whole life without ever getting an EI cheque, is that it has no heart. The member for Lévis—Lotbinière is trying, once again, to introduce a bill to fix that.

What we want is for those on the other side of the House to wake up and for the government to provide royal recommendation to allow Bill C-215 to pass, to allow people who are sick to be treated and often to fight for their lives, to beat the illness and, above all, to return to work.

I implore the government once again to give royal recommendation to Bill C-215, for all workers and for Normand Chevalier and everyone like him. If the minister does not intend to give royal recommendation, I hope she will go back and say that anyone who is currently receiving treatment is eligible for the 26 weeks.

The House resumed from December 12, 2022, consideration of the motion that Bill C‑215, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), be read the third time and passed.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in today's debate on Bill C‑239, which deals with a promise that the Conservative Party itself proposed in the summer of 2018.

We also moved a motion on February 5, 2019, here in the House, on this clear and legitimate request from Quebeckers and the Quebec National Assembly, specifically to cut the paperwork burden on Quebeckers significantly by allowing them to file a single tax return.

On April 24, 2021, all of my Conservative Party colleagues voted for this measure in Bill C‑224. The single income tax return responds to a request that is dear to the hearts of the people of Lévis—Lotbinière and all Quebeckers. All Quebeckers are required to file two tax returns as soon as they start earning an income, even if they have not reached the age of majority. This noble and legitimate request will save a lot of time and money for Quebec families and all Quebeckers. It is important to note that Quebec is the only province in Canada that still has to take on this onerous task.

Whether it relates to this bill or any other measure that would be good for the Quebec nation and the entire Canadian population, nothing seems to make the Liberal government lift a finger since it came to power in 2015, because saving time and money is simply not one of its values and is not in its DNA.

Let me give a real-life example of when all my children were still living under the same roof at home. At the time, it meant 14 individual tax returns for one house, plus two returns for my small farm. Think about it, that is 16 tax returns under one roof. That is a lot of repetitive and counterproductive work forced on families, students and young workers, who are eager to be active in the workforce, which is in need of labour now more than ever.

True to their values, Conservatives have always been committed to simplifying the lives of Quebeckers, saving them time and money, and increasing their quality of life.

We cannot shy away from certain words. We are living under a coalition government, and this cronyism between the Liberals and the NDP is disastrous for all Quebeckers and Canadians across the country. This arrangement is damaging our democracy and prevents any good measures from being adopted. We saw proof of this when the NDP and the Liberals voted against Bill C‑224, sealing its fate.

We saw further proof recently with my private member's bill, Bill C‑215, which got a majority but may not be adopted at third reading because the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are still refusing to give it a royal recommendation. I would like to remind members that my bill would extend EI benefits for people with serious illness to 52 weeks, a fix for outdated legislation that has not been amended since 1971.

There are a lot of good bills here, including the one before us now, Bill C‑239, which is perfectly valid. However, we have a major problem in the House after eight years of Liberal incompetence that is now making itself felt across Canada and in every sector.

Our Canada is broken. It will never be like it was before. We are experiencing the repercussions of lack of leadership and political will to bring positive, long-lasting change to the lives of people in Canada.

Under the Liberals, life has become very expensive. Inflation, taxes, crime and drug deaths are on the rise. Honest citizens like hunters and farmers are being attacked and penalized by Bill C‑21. We have a Liberal government that will do anything to help its cronies get funding and contracts in exchange for a $500 ticket to a dinner. The Liberals managed to legalize marijuana and now want to decriminalize hard drugs. However, when it comes to helping honest people who work hard, day in and day out, people who are responsible, or people who are seriously ill and simply deserve our support, there is no danger of Liberal favouritism. There is no danger of giving these honest people a free ride. We hear more than a simple “no”. It is a resounding “no” to anyone with common sense and logic, and this is all currently endorsed by the NDP.

This government is really old, worn out and outdated, not to mention fundamentally incompetent.

I remember all too well the Liberal argument against adopting a single tax return in Quebec. I can already see the return of the stale rhetoric of the Minister of National Revenue—we just heard it. The House has already heard responses using the simplistic argument that having a single tax return would result in massive job losses, which is unfounded and, moreover, would happen at a time when there is a dire need for labour across Canada.

I would also like to remind the minister and my colleagues that the number of public service jobs has increased by 32% from 2015. My constituents write to me to tell me that they can no longer make ends meet, have no savings, are using food banks to feed themselves and their family, can no longer afford their rent, have to work when sick or, even worse, have to declare bankruptcy. Like them, I am very worried about our future and that of our children and future generations.

The aspirations of Quebeckers are eroding after eight years of Liberal incompetence. The single tax return that has been a Conservative election promise since 2018 will still not see the light of day, I am afraid. The NDP has to go back to being an opposition party and stop propping up the Liberal government. We all know that the 32 Bloc Québécois MPs are not the ones who can make the change that Canada really needs.

I am proud that the people in my riding, Lévis—Lotbinière, trust me and the leadership of the Conservative Party to put an end to the Liberal incompetence that we have seen for eight years now—eight years too many. The Conservatives are the best equipped to work for a more productive Quebec, a stronger Quebec, a richer Quebec, a Quebec that is a partner in Canada's success, a Quebec that is proud of its culture and heritage, a Quebec that is worthy of the French language, a Quebec that is respected by the Conservative Party of Canada for what it has achieved. The Conservative Party is a proud partner in the success of all Canadians from all provinces.

Historically, the Conservatives have said yes to Quebec's requests. We said yes to the construction of the new Champlain Bridge, yes to the future third link in Quebec City, yes to more power over immigration for Quebec and yes to a single tax return. That is more than a promise of change or lip service. It is a real commitment, a promise that I have been keeping every day in the House for 17 years now, along with my Conservative colleagues. I say yes for Lévis—Lotbinière and yes for Quebec.

Employment Insurance Act

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking the member for Lévis—Lotbinière for his work on Bill C-215.

As the member of Parliament for the riding of Waterloo, I hear from many constituents when it comes to programs within our country, including unemployment insurance. It is a program that has been there to support workers when they are recovering from illness or injury, and it is important that they feel confident that they are supported.

It is nice to see that there is a Conservative member recognizing the importance of that system and strengthening that system. Oftentimes in this place, when we are voting or the government is advancing programs, that support is not always there from the official opposition. However, in this private member's bill, we have the ability to at least hear from a private member from the Conservative benches on his support to strengthen unemployment insurance.

As I was saying, when Canadians are recovering from illness or injury, they deserve to feel confident that they are supported and that their jobs are protected. That is why the government is taking action to improve employment insurance sickness benefits.

Just a few weeks ago, the hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion announced that, as of December 18, we are permanently extending EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. This extension will provide approximately 169,000 Canadians per year with additional time and flexibility to recover so they can return to work after an illness, injury or quarantine.

Right now, more than ever, it really is important for programs such as unemployment insurance, which workers pay into and then receive the benefit, that people know the program is there for them. That is why the extension of EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks is not the only improvement taking effect on December 18.

I am pleased to say we are also increasing the maximum length of unpaid medical leave available to federally regulated private sector workers from 17 weeks to 27 weeks. This change will ensure that workers in federally regulated industries have the right to take unpaid job-protected leave while receiving the extended EI sickness benefit.

We have seen very uncertain and challenging times. We know that, more than ever, we need to ensure there is a government that is not only listening and engaging but also responding to the very real needs of Canadians.

We saw the world go through a global health crisis. In Canada, it was important to have the government of the day respond to those needs. When individuals were worried about paying rent, buying food, etc., because the country, the world, was shut down, it was the government of the day that brought out the Canada emergency response benefit. We made sure that Canadians could have access to that benefit rather quickly. We knew they were anxious. It was a tough time, and they deserved a government that would be there for them.

What did the government do? Our government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, stepped up. We also heard from businesses and the list goes on. Part of that conversation really was on unemployment insurance.

Small business owners or job creators are often not the ones who are paying into EI, because they are worried about their workers and the people they create jobs for. Therefore, when they needed access to that program, they were not eligible for it because they had not paid into it. However, our government listened. We made sure that we would find ways so that more people could benefit from this very important program that exists in Canada.

I should also mention in passing that, as of December 1, 2022, federally regulated private sector workers will also begin accumulating up to 10 days of paid sick leave per year. This is something we have been hearing for a long time. In the riding of Waterloo, many constituents contact me with a diversity of perspectives and opinions. This step was really important and one that I heard often.

We also extended working while on claim to include EI sickness and EI maternity benefits. That gives people more flexibility, so they can keep more of their benefits if they choose to gradually return to work. It is important to recognize that we do have a changing environment, and we do have opportunities. We need to ensure that there is some flexibility there.

As part of that flexibility, for members of Parliament, who have always needed to take their seats to ensure we continue to do the important work of the House, we have brought out a hybrid model. Members of Parliament are able to be in their ridings as well as do the work of the House of Commons and represent their constituents.

It is important that we adjust and improve the way benefits are delivered so that more people can benefit from them. These improvements are part of a broader plan to modernize Canada's EI system. Technically, we should be looking at all of our systems.

Our overarching goal is to build an EI program that is more fair, more flexible and more responsive to the needs of workers. To achieve that goal, we also asked for Canadians to help. In August 2021, we began a two-year consultation on EI reform to build an EI program that is more flexible, more fair and better suited to the needs of today's workers.

The best way to respond to what Canadians are asking for is to bring them into the conversation. That is something that has often been lacking. Members of Parliament will rise in this place, as it is really an honour and privilege to be here, and say they have the solution, but they have never spoken to constituents across the country. It is important that this consultation process is one that Canadians participate in. I am pleased to see we are doing it.

It is unfortunate that I have run out of time. I look forward to this conversation continuing. I hope to see more members recognize the importance of improving our systems and strengthening programs, such as employment insurance.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and privilege of rising today to speak to Bill C-215, which was introduced by my very good friend and colleague, the member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

I want to start by thanking him for introducing this very important bill. He has shown a lot of initiative in continuing to exert pressure to get this bill passed. This bill is completely non-partisan, and I think that all members should support it in order to improve the lives of many Canadians across the country.

We have all heard so many stories about people in our ridings and especially in our personal lives who have been diagnosed with cancer or who have been seriously injured. These people do not have it easy. They are facing some very serious challenges. That is why it is so important to pass a bill like this one to help our most vulnerable constituents.

Take, for example, a roofer who breaks his back on the job and is unable to return to work for months, only to then be diagnosed with cancer. After his surgery, he cannot return to work for a long time. According to the current wording of the act, he is entitled to only 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits. If a person in such a situation is not yet ready to go back to work after 15 weeks and has not been authorized to do so by their doctor, they can end up in a very precarious situation.

I hardly need to remind my colleagues that not everyone has family members to share their financial burden, nor can everyone live off their savings for more than 15 weeks.

According to a study, this kind of problem affects over 151,000 people in Canada every year. That works out to about 450 people in every riding in this country, so it is a big problem. That is a staggering number. These people are our neighbours, our friends, even our family members. We live in a country with a great EI system, but the government has not yet taken steps to extend benefit periods for these kinds of serious and rare cases.

In our country, many vulnerable Canadians may one day fall ill. We need a compassionate system that allows for all possible situations. We need to create a real safety net that will make Canadians feel safe and, most importantly, let them know they have the time they need to get better and will not be forced to go back to work before they are fully healed.

At some point or other, 55% of Canadians will need EI. It is unavoidable, and that is the reason we need to review legislation such as the Employment Insurance Act and try to find ways to enhance it. Experts say that this law needs to be amended to change the current maximum of 15 weeks. We must listen to the experts and work with them to make these changes correctly. All parties need to be heard, and all options need to be considered.

Some members may be concerned about the possibility of fraud or abuse if we increase the number of weeks of sickness benefits. I want to assure my colleagues that this legislation is solid and includes many protection measures to avoid these types of problems. The EI system is extremely well monitored and audited as a whole to catch potential fraudsters. A doctor's note or certificate is still needed to receive EI payments. The timeline is recommended by health care professionals.

I firmly believe that we must trust our health care providers, who do such important work day after day, to diagnose illnesses and suggest an amount of sick leave for each individual that is fair and based on science. We need to trust our health care system to do things properly.

I would like to remind all members that one of the promises the Conservatives made in 2021 was to increase the EI sickness benefit limit beyond 15 weeks, and we plan to keep that promise with this bill.

The same bill was introduced in the past, but unfortunately it never received royal assent. I clearly remember that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP both supported our bill the last time it was introduced, and I sincerely hope that we can count on that support again this time. I sincerely hope that the NDP-Liberal coalition will see that this bill is a really good law and that it will help all Canadians.

I know that some members will still have doubts or questions about the bill. Are we going too far? What about Canadians who have private insurance?

Rest assured that there is nothing to be concerned about. First, Canadians do not want to be ill or to be confined to their homes. We know that, in most cases, they return to work as soon as they can.

Also, anyone who has private insurance must use up their weeks of private sick leave before applying for the federal program. In most cases, they will be able to return to work without ever having to use Service Canada's EI system. This bill will have no impact on our SMEs' private insurance systems. The federal program will simply be there as a safety net in certain extenuating circumstances.

This measure is affordable for the government and it is an entirely reasonable thing to do. Not only is it reasonable, but it is the fairest thing to do. Many Canadians pay into EI for their entire lives and never have to use it. Other Canadians are not so lucky and have to use this safety net to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table during one of the most difficult times in their lives.

I believe that our constituents, who have paid taxes and contributed to social programs their entire lives, deserve to be looked after when a crisis hits their families. They deserve to feel protected by the government and respected for all they have done for society.

As inflation and high interest rates continue to hit Canadians hard, we need to assure them that we are there for them when they really need us.

In closing, this bill seeks to give Canadians the dignity they deserve and the help they need when they need it most. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, we are talking about our neighbours, friends and sometimes even our family members. Misfortune or illness can befall anyone at any time. Long-term illnesses and major accidents can happen in the blink of an eye. All elected officials have a duty to amend any law that they think is inadequate. I think that is what this bill does.

I want to wish all of my constituents and all Canadians good luck, health and happiness this Christmas season. If anything bad does happen in their lives, I want them to know that the Conservative Party will support them by passing Bill C-215.

I am very proud to have had the opportunity to speak to this bill today. I would like to once again thank the member for Lévis—Lotbinière for his hard work on this file and for defending the interests of vulnerable Canadians across the country.

I truly hope that we can unanimously pass this bill quickly here in the House so that it can receive a royal recommendation. It is a bill that we can all be very proud of.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged once again to reiterate the importance of extending special EI sickness benefits to 52 weeks, as proposed in my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière's Bill C‑215. I salute the Conservative Party for taking this stand.

This bill is the eleventh such bill introduced in the House in over a decade. The Bloc Québécois alone has introduced three of them, the most recent one being my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît's Bill C‑265, the Émilie Sansfaçon act.

I do not know what it will take to convince the Liberal government to really hear the unanimous voices of those who have stood up to say that sickness benefits must be increased to 50 weeks. When the party currently in power was on the opposition benches, it was in favour of the 50-weeks idea.

Perhaps it is time for that party to spend a little time on the other side. Perhaps that would serve as a salutary reminder that, back when the Liberal Party was an opposition party, Denis Coderre, the member for Bourassa at the time, introduced Bill C‑291, which would have increased sickness benefits to 50 weeks. The current Prime Minister was a strong advocate of the idea. How crazy is that? It boggles the mind.

However, research and studies on gravely ill workers should easily persuade us of the need for action, and non-partisan action. Sick workers have been waiting for 50 years to get an adequate number of weeks. It is about time this issue was addressed once and for all.

This was done and continues to be done in the case of the dying with dignity legislation. We should be guided in much the same way and be equally motivated when it comes to sick workers, so they can care for themselves with dignity.

There is only one thing left for the government to do today, and that is to give royal recommendation to this bill. It can and must do so. It has the power to improve things for all those workers whose only insurance is the EI system, an outdated system that requires urgent reform, despite the many broken promises.

I heard my colleague say in his 10-minute speech that this was part of an EI strategy. That is nonsense. What strategy? The system has not been reformed for 15 years. The Liberals promised to do so in 2019, in 2021 and again now, but nothing has been done.

Coluche said, “The doors of the future are open to those who know how to push them.” It is true that it takes courage, and although all too often this government has shown the opposite, let us hope that, in this case, reason and ambition will be able to convince it.

Let us remember that we have a minority government and that the opposition parties voted unanimously several times in favour of 50 weeks of sickness benefits. In 2019, the following Bloc Québécois motion was passed by a majority:

That the House call on the government to increase the special Employment Insurance sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks in the upcoming budget in order to support people with serious illnesses, such as cancer.

In 2020, the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C‑265, known as the Émilie Sansfaçon act. On June 15, 2021, Bill C‑265 was referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which adopted it unanimously on June 17, 2021, and reported it back to the House. We should note that, in committee, Liberal MPs voted in favour of this bill. Unfortunately, it died on the Order Paper when an election was called.

On December 15, 2021, Bill C‑215 was introduced. On October 17, 2022, it was referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. This bill was once again adopted unanimously by the committee members on October 19, 2022.

Notably, all parties voted unanimously in favour of these motions. We are now at report stage. Parliamentary democracy demands that we act accordingly and consider the views of members. Hiding behind the fact that these are private member's bills that require a royal recommendation would indisputably be a power play by the government that is disrespectful and abusive of the will of the majority of elected members of the House who, on behalf of the people they represent, want this change. It would be undemocratic and cowardly. As my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière said, let us hope that the Liberals do not hide behind the need for a royal recommendation.

The government will surely argue that it heard the request, which it did when it quietly announced on a Friday afternoon, away from the bright lights of the TV cameras, that the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits would be increased to 26 as of December 18, and only for new claimants. This announcement shows that the government did not listen. That is not what anyone has been asking for. The inter-union alliance made up of the FTQ, the CSN, the CSD and the CSQ, which represents over two million workers in Quebec, the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi, the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses, the Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail, Unifor and the Canadian Labour Congress were all calling for 50 weeks.

Nobody asked the government to stop halfway. This is a half-measure that solves nothing for seriously ill workers. With it, the government is abandoning thousands of them who will not be able to take the time they need to recover without worrying about their finances and hoping to be able to return to work. It shows a complete lack of compassion and humanity.

Are half-measures what the government is striving for in its social approach to illness? I hope not.

To save a few dollars in the short term, the government is prepared to let thousands of families slide into poverty, which will cost the community much more in the long run. Is that the government's economic approach? I should hope not.

Sick workers who pay into EI have a fair right to a maximum of 50 or 52 weeks of special sickness benefits. Remember, workers are the ones paying into EI. I just want to reiterate that employment insurance, in its current form, is not like winning the jackpot. It takes 600 hours to qualify, and eligible workers get only 55% of their earned income.

Currently, studies show that it can take up to 41 weeks for seriously ill workers to recover. The number of weeks of EI sickness benefits has been stuck at 15 for 50 years. It will increase to 26 weeks as of December 18, but that will not be enough. Given today's labour shortage, what workers want most is to have the time and means to get well and return to work. The current 15 weeks was not nearly enough, and the planned 26 weeks will not allow for that either.

Our society wants a strong social safety net and believes in its workers, so the Liberal government should logically give this bill a royal recommendation. It takes heart. Above all, it takes vision.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-215, sponsored by the member for Lévis—Lotbinière. The bill is about amending the Employment Insurance Act in the areas of illness, injury and quarantine. This bill would modify existing legislation to extend EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 52 weeks.

I want to be clear from the outset: The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion opposes this bill, and the Government of Canada opposes this bill. I also want to be clear that Parliament has already approved an extension of EI sickness benefits to 26 weeks. These changes are being implemented as we speak, and as recently announced, they will be up and running beginning December 18. Additionally, the legislative changes related to this extension have already received royal assent. Therefore, I will be using my time today to explain our position and outline how our changes to Canada's EI program will help support Canadian workers.

Let there be no doubt that we recognize the financial challenges that Canadians suffering from long-term illness or injury and their families face. We know that EI sickness benefits are an important support for Canadians who need temporary leave from their job due to illness, injury or quarantine. These benefits allow individuals to take the time they need to rest and restore their health without having to worry about their financial situation.

While the current 15 weeks of entitlement are sufficient for most claimants to recover and return to work, approximately one-third of claimants exhaust the maximum entitlement of 15 weeks of benefits. This is why we are permanently extending the maximum duration of EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. This extension will provide an additional support to approximately 169,000 Canadian workers every year who require additional time to regain their health before returning to work.

In contrast, an extension of EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 52 weeks, as proposed in Bill C-215, would undermine the spirit and intent of the EI program, which is to keep workers connected to the labour force. Bill C-215 would incur an estimated incremental cost of over $2 billion per year, which would cost $1 billion more per year than the approved extension to 26 weeks.

I would like to turn to the issue of EI reform.

The current extension of sickness benefits is part of our broader strategy to modernize the EI program. The pandemic laid bare a number of faults with the EI program. It made us recognize that the current EI program needs to evolve so that it can better respond to changing labour markets and workforce needs. Canada needs a modern EI program that better meets the needs of workers and employers. The plan to modernize EI must take into account the realities of those who use it. That is why we have been consulting with Canadians on how to build a simpler, fairer and more flexible program.

In 2021, we embarked on a two-year consultation process on EI modernization. The consultation, which took place over two phases, is now complete. We are currently analyzing the input received from the various participants. Their insights are helping to guide us in designing a program that is more modern, resilient, accessible, adequate and financially viable.

Among other things, we heard that there is a need to reform the EI program to make it simpler, more responsive and more inclusive. The program must evolve to support all types of workers, including freelance and self-employed workers. With budget 2022, we confirmed our commitment to establishing an EI program with simpler and fairer rules for both workers and employers. Modernizing a program that serves millions of Canadians is a serious task, and we are taking the time to get it right.

I would like to thank the public servants who have worked tirelessly to provide Canadians with the benefits and services essential to their well-being. Increasing the maximum duration of these benefits and services from 15 weeks to 26 weeks will allow Canadians to focus on what is essential: their health.

We have a plan that promotes a healthy, resilient and inclusive labour market and that includes, of course, EI reform. Today, let us take note that every year, roughly 169,000 Canadians will benefit from the extension of EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks.

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

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to deliver this third reading speech on my private member's bill, Bill C‑215, to amend the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits.

As lawmakers, the actions we take and the political decisions we make every day must be guided by practical and responsible ethics. Naturally, I wish to remind my Liberal colleagues and the Prime Minister of this duty, which is necessary to the well-being of our society, because Bill C‑215 is still awaiting a royal recommendation.

Bill C‑215 proposed to increase from 15 to 52 weeks the period for which Canadians eligible for EI sickness benefits are able to use extra weeks for their recovery or their convalescence, thereby providing a minimum amount of financial security in case of serious illness, such as cancer and other illnesses that require long recovery periods.

Since the latest reading, Bill C‑215 has gone to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and all committee members voted in favour of the report on October 19.

Furthermore, all our hard work has resulted in a half win, given that, on November 25, the Liberal government announced a glimmer of hope for sick Canadians who can begin applying as of December 18, 2022.

They could receive up to 26 weeks of EI sickness benefits instead of 15. To say that 26 is better than 15 gives very little comfort to sick Canadians who are simply trying to survive, especially in these tough inflationary times. It is even worse when we consider that recovering from a serious illness takes about 38 to 40 weeks in many cases.

This is a good start, but it falls short. It does not do justice to the spirit of the outdated legislation, which is meant to respond to the real needs identified by experts. These experts wanted to see up to 52 weeks of benefits provided to sick people, who need almost a year for a full recovery.

As members know, this bill has been introduced many times to address the outdated legislation from 1971, and here we are with 2023 right around the corner. As I said earlier, this bill absolutely must have the support of the Liberal government to get royal recommendation and to proceed. So far, all signs point to the Liberal Party leaving 31,000 sick Canadians per year out in the cold, without a penny to recover and regain their health after the promised 26 weeks, as I would remind members.

I have to say that I am completely befuddled by the government's refusal to support this responsible and just bill for Canadians who do not have insurance.

However, the government has, to some degree, recognized this very serious need, and I am pleased with one thing: Increasing the maximum benefit to 26 weeks means that the bulk of the cost for this measure has been dealt with.

There are three keys words associated with Bill C-215: affordable, reasonable and shared.

According to a 2019 study, this is an affordable bill with a reasonable cost, which is shared by Canadians and Canadian employers. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed it in March 2022.

As I stated at second reading, the March 2022 study indicated 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, the cost would amount to $1.6 billion a year on average for the next five years.

When I was a witness at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on October 17 and 19, I had the opportunity to present my bill and again demonstrate its merits, which are indisputable to all except my Liberal colleagues and the Prime Minister, of course. During these hours of study at committee, several witnesses were given the opportunity to speak and deliver a touching testimony; some even shared their medical or bureaucratic expertise.

On October 19, the committee questioned Benoit Cadieux, director of special benefits and employment insurance policy at the Skills and Employment Branch of the Department of Employment and Social Development. According to Mr. Cadieux, the estimated cost in the next budget for shifting from 15 weeks to 26 weeks is $1 billion for the first year.

The legislative costing note for Bill C-215, prepared by the Parliamentary Budget Officer in March, shows that the bill, which seeks to increase the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits from 15 to 52, would cost $1.92 billion in the first year. The additional cost of increasing EI sickness benefits from 26 to 52 weeks would therefore be $92 million per year. Doing so would make it possible to help all those who need EI sickness benefits. That is a completely reasonable cost to protect the 31,000 Canadians who do not have insurance and who need more than 26 weeks to recover from a serious illness.

Everyone here who is in good health is unbelievably lucky, and this good health is too often taken for granted. For many, cancer is an experience they go through, but others are not lucky enough to recover quickly, especially if they have many other concerns on their plate. As we know, 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 challenges that are much more onerous than the patient was originally expecting.

Given the scope of the challenge facing Canadians and the tremendous resilience they have, 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. Many people have to rethink every aspect of their lives, and that takes a lot of courage.

Canadians need us. I hope that this third hour of debate will persuade 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. As I have said in the House before, I had to deal with those challenges and unforeseen costs with my spouse. There is the travel to the treatment site, for example, along with parking, child care, nutritional supplements, vitamins and prescription drugs, as well as any equipment needed for recovery.

Even now, EI sickness benefits provide up to 15 weeks of financial support to individuals who cannot work for medical reasons, enabling them to collect 55% of their earnings. I think Canadians agree that even 26 weeks is not enough and that we can do better.

In closing, I will review all the reasons why my Bill C‑215 is a good bill. 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. This measure 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.

On December 18, the Liberal government will increase employment insurance sickness benefits to 26 weeks. This means that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's cost estimate would be greatly reduced and represent an additional $92 million a year for a maximum of 52 weeks of benefits. Our society can cover this. All we need is the political will on the Liberals' part. I sincerely hope, for all those who need it, that Bill C‑215 will receive a royal recommendation from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance and the support of all my colleagues in the House at third reading. This is a noble cause. It will make it possible for our loved ones to take care of themselves and to take the time they need to fully recover.

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to wish you happy holidays. I also extend season's greetings to my colleagues and all Canadians, including the people living in the wonderful riding of Lévis—Lotbinière.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before the House proceeds to the debate at third reading, the Chair wishes to remind members that pursuant to the statement made on Tuesday, April 3 a royal recommendation is required for Bill C-215, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, illness, injury or quarantine, since the bill appropriates part of the public revenue.

Unless 24 hours' notice is given of such a royal recommendation at the conclusion of the debate on Bill C‑215, the question on the motion for third reading of the bill will not be put.

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

moved that Bill C-215, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine) be concurred in.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-215, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the government of Bill C‑215 on employment insurance, which seeks to increase from 15 to 52 the number of weeks of sickness benefits for cases of serious illness, such as cancer. I would also remind the government that just 15 weeks of assistance is no longer enough to give Canadians financial security. This bill was passed by the House and reflects its will to provide those additional weeks. It would resolve the problem of economic protection for generations.

I also want to point out that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities voted unanimously in favour of allowing the bill to reach third reading stage. According to parliamentary procedure, we need a royal recommendation from the government to finalize passage of the bill.

Bill C‑215 is an example what the Canadian Parliament and all parliamentarians can do by working together, in the best interests of all Canadians.

Let us be attentive and compassionate towards one another to build a better world here in Canada.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was so pleased to hear our colleague's remarks on Bill C‑215, an initiative he put forward together with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

I would like to hear his version. Why is this bill moving so slowly? It might be naive of me to ask, but I thought the NDP was very supportive of the bill. The Bloc Québécois certainly is, and it is even on the Conservatives' agenda.

Why does he think this is happening? It is such a great bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to participate in the debate on the Liberal government's 2022 economic statement.

Not surprisingly, the government is sticking to very liberal economic measures. Nothing conservative to see here. We have noticed a pattern of ongoing deficits and promises to balance the budget a few years from now. Whether good times or bad, the government does not seem too concerned about achieving that financial goal or acting responsibly.

I would also note that the government expects its rising carbon tax to bring in significantly more revenue over the next few years. This leaves Canadians struggling with the Bank of Canada's interest rate hikes very little financial wiggle room.

This economic statement does nothing to address the many issues Canadians grapple with on a daily basis just to live with dignity.

We have all noticed the rising price of food, especially meat, fruit and grain and dairy products. The entire agri-food supply chain is under tremendous pressure from world markets. Staple foods are in short supply and transportation costs are exorbitant at a time when Canada is already experiencing a labour shortage.

We are easily talking about an increase of $3,000 per year for a family of two adults and two children. The housing affordability situation is adding unprecedented financial pressure, with the Bank of Canada raising interest rates from 0.25% to 3.75%.

Furthermore, the bank is planning two more rate hikes, in December and February. For a family with a $400,000 mortgage, a four-point increase means an additional $16,000 in annual interest costs.

This is, of course, after-tax dollars, so after the additional $3,000 for groceries, it means another $19,000 for the family budget.

We must not forget the additional transportation costs for families, given the increase in the price of gas and the carbon tax that is also driving up gas prices in Canada.

For a family that uses 100 litres of gas per week, that means an extra $60 per week, easily, and therefore another $3,000 per year.

If I do the math, that means an extra $22,000 per year, and that is just for the basic needs of a family of two adults and two children. There are also all the goods and services needed for the family's well-being, which have also been affected by inflationary costs. That is easily an extra $2,000 per year.

That brings me to a total of $24,000 in additional expenses. That is a huge amount of financial pressure on the average Canadian family.

I would like to have seen more conservative measures in the economic statement to reassure Canadians that their tax dollars are used wisely, for the right purposes and at the right cost.

This means avoiding the Liberals' wasteful and excessive spending and their infuriating practice of buying too much only to throw it all away or overpaying for goods and services.

Canadians are demanding—and deserve—good government management on all fronts to ensure that we maintain our social safety net as we know it today.

I am a father to five children and I am fortunate to have grandchildren. When I go to sleep at night, I think of my constituents who share their financial problems with me. I think of those families who are going hungry and who, even after cutting their expenses as much as possible, have to painfully humble themselves and use the services of a food bank.

Everywhere across Canada, food banks are seeing a large increase in demand for food support. This demand has increased by 35% compared to 2019, the period before the pandemic.

We also see that many more students and young families are having to turn to this type of assistance to cope with the rising cost of rent, groceries and transportation. Of course, then there are the winter months, which drive up the cost of living even further as a result of the need for heating during these long, cold Canadian winters.

Across Canada, people are getting poorer thanks to the inflationary policies of this Liberal government, which has been spending freely and recklessly since 2015. Specifically, I am thinking about the princely tastes of the Prime Minister, who treated himself to a $6,000-a-night suite at the taxpayers' expense. I am also thinking about the ArriveCAN app, which cost $54 million to develop when it could have been done for $250,000. Then there was the purchase of twice as many medical ventilators as needed, at a cost of $403 million. That money was spent for nothing, for no good reason other than poor planning.

Most importantly, we cannot forget that our national debt has doubled since this Liberal government took office. It is now at $1.2 trillion, putting enormous interest pressure on the federal budget. The Prime Minister and his Liberal government will pay $43.3 billion in interest charges annually, which is the budget of several government departments combined, like the health transfer budget and the social housing assistance budget. Our social safety net is at risk of suffering for decades to come as a result of the Liberal government's ill-considered choices.

The government must encourage Canadians to participate in the labour market in order to reduce the labour shortage in our economy. I do not understand why the Prime Minister did not make it a priority in the economic statement to implement measures that would give Canada some fiscal flexibility.

I would like to give the government members a reality check as they are also failing Canadians who are sick. I would like to remind the government of Bill C-215 on employment insurance, which seeks to increase the number of weeks of sickness benefits from 15 to 52 in cases of serious illness, such as cancer. I would like to remind the government that, when Canadians are trying to recover from a major health issue, a mere 15 weeks of benefits does not give them financial security. The government is offering 26 weeks and will deprive over 31,000 Canadians a year of the weeks they need to recover their health.

This bill was passed by the House and reflects its desire to make these additional weeks a reality. It would resolve the economic protection issue for generations to come. I would also like to point out that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities voted unanimously in favour of allowing the bill to move to third reading. According to parliamentary procedure, the bill now requires a royal recommendation so that it can be passed.

While we are debating this economic statement, which does not reflect all of the critical needs of Canadians, I will speak on their behalf and implore the government to reconsider and reform the EI system by passing Bill C-215. Bill C‑215 illustrates what the Canadian Parliament and all parliamentarians can do by working together, in the best interests of all Canadians. It is time to set partisanship aside on this matter, in the collective interest of building the Canada of tomorrow, with all Canadians on an equal footing when facing the challenge of a serious illness, especially in light of the current economic crisis. Let us be attentive and compassionate towards one another to build a better world here in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today as we debate the—what is it now?—18th or 19th time allocation motion so far.

It is hard to keep track because this habit has become so ingrained in how we operate. It is time allocation after time allocation. Maybe people will start using that expression. Time allocation used to be the exception, but now, since the pandemic, since the advent of the hybrid Parliament, it seems to have become common practice, and I think that is a shame. I think it is a shame to shut down democratic debate and take away what really matters in a Parliament: time and space to debate and air contrasting views.

That is why I am pleased to share some of my thoughts on Bill C‑32.

Before the economic statement, the Bloc Québécois had great expectations. We really wanted a conversation about health transfers. We were hoping for a sign that the government wanted to give Quebec and the provinces the health transfers they have been asking for so they can fulfill their responsibilities.

In Quebec, that means addressing the aging population and the significant issues with mental health services, which are lacking in number and scope to meet the demand. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the economic update about that.

My colleague from Shefford has said this, and the Bloc Québécois has said it, and it is one of our priorities. We do not understand how the government does not consider those between the ages of 65 and 74 to be people who need to regain a certain amount of purchasing power, especially with the inflation crisis. If there was ever a segment of the population that needed a helping hand, it is them. Increasing old age security would have really been good news, a sign that the government is listening to seniors, those who built the Quebec of today.

In the economic update, we really wanted to see the government's desire and firm resolve to overhaul employment insurance. Today, I will use the minutes at my disposal to speak in greater detail about the EI program and the need to reform it.

Today, as we speak, barely 40% of workers have access to EI.

That is sad because, as we know, the EI fund is an insurance program. That means that workers pay premiums on their paycheque and employers pay premiums, and the money goes to build the EI fund, an important reservoir for workers who need it. Unfortunately, although the fund is quite healthy at the moment, it does not actually serve the people who really need it. Access is restricted.

I am very committed to this cause. The Bloc Québécois has been asking for EI reform for years, and we do not understand the government's resistance.

As I like to remind everyone, I decided to run again in 2015, the year the Liberals campaigned on a promise of comprehensive EI reform. In 2019, they promised it again, and then again in 2021. It is promise after promise, but nothing ever happens. The government had included $5 million in its budget to conduct extensive consultations across the provinces and Canada to understand and gauge the needs of workers, employers and civil society, and yet, 18 months later, we still have nothing. There has been no proposal and no plan to reform EI, even though my colleague from Thérèse‑De Blainville made it a subject to be studied by her committee. The committee heard from many witnesses who expressed the needs and shortcomings of the current system, which, as we all know, really needs to be modernized and updated to be tailored to today's labour market.

Of course, we have a number of demands. Workers who have paid premiums all their lives but find themselves in a difficult situation, like if their business is forced to shut down and they have to rely on EI, receive benefits equivalent to 55% of their income. The Bloc Québécois believes that, in the overall reform, that percentage really needs to increase to 60%. I think this is reasonable, and the rate was 60% prior to 1993. I remember very clearly when it was reduced to 55% of income. This demand remains permanent and is also being made by all the stakeholders who support the unemployed and others.

In its overhaul of EI, we would also like the government to eliminate the one-week waiting period. I do not know the reason behind the one-week period, but it is in addition to the system's bureaucratic delays for those who lose their jobs. People do not choose to go on EI. They do so because they lose their jobs as a result of the closure of a business, layoffs or any number of other reasons. Because of this long waiting period, which really should not happen, claimants only receive their first payment after six weeks. At least, that was the waiting period before the government system was paralyzed, back when it was working well and the performance and service standards were met. That was in the old days. Now, someone who loses their job in early or mid-June will not receive a cheque until late September or early October, because the system is completely paralyzed.

Our demands for the reform are important, and we were hoping to see them reflected in the economic update. We wanted people with a serious illness to be able to get 50 to 52 weeks of special EI sickness benefits in the event they are unable to return to work.

As members know, in the last Parliament, I introduced a bill that proposed that. What is more, as we speak, Bill C‑215 has been studied in committee, and the majority of the members who sit on that committee voted in favour of ensuring that people who have a serious illness can take the time they need to fight the illness and recover their health without having to worry about their financial circumstances.

As things stand now, it pains me to see people get to the end of their 15th week of special benefits when they have not finished their cancer treatments, their chemotherapy or their radiation. By the next week, they will have nothing left to pay their bills.

The minister seems to be sympathetic to the situation, but I think it is unacceptable when she promises this will arrive in the summer, then in fall, then at Christmas. She keeps pushing the date back further and further. Although she has the budget to do this, she refuses to give a specific date that would give hope to those who are starting chemotherapy or radiation today or who are taking long-term sick leave to take care of themselves, so they can regain their strength and go back to work.

We have talked a lot about Marie-Hélène Dubé, a woman who had cancer a few years ago and who decided to fight to have EI sickness benefits increased to 52 weeks, because she had to re-mortgage her house to meet her responsibilities and take care of herself.

Unfortunately, in committee two weeks ago, she said that her cancer is back and she will not have time to heal before the end of her 15 weeks. She is reliving the nightmare she went through a few years ago. To my mind, that is unacceptable.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C‑32, because it does contain some good measures, but I implore the government to take a step in the right direction by quickly agreeing to reform EI and to implement the special benefits program for sick workers as soon as possible.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-215, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The bill has been carried, the title has been carried, and the chair will report it to the House.

Thank you to the legislative clerks.

We still have a bit of committee business on which I need direction from the committee. The witnesses can leave at this time. Thank you, Mr. Cadieux and Ms. Nandy.

I need adoption of the budget that we spent on reviewing Bill C-215, in the amount of $7,850. Do I have approval of the budget, or you'll have to cough up for the lunches you enjoyed when you were there?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.

Bill C-215 amends the Employment Insurance Act by increasing from 15 to 52 the maximum number of weeks for which benefits can be paid in the event of an illness, injury or quarantine. Amendment NDP-3 seeks to prevent the total number of combined weeks of benefits in subsection 12(6) of the act being taken into account for benefits paid in the event of an illness, injury or quarantine.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment aims to relax the conditions for the payment of benefits provided for in the act, which requires a royal recommendation. Therefore, I rule this amendment inadmissible.

I see no challenge to the chair's ruling.

Madame Chabot, go ahead.

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

I wasn't expecting that, Mr. Chair, but I will reiterate that on April 5, 2022, the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons ruled that Bill C-215 needs to be accompanied by a royal recommendation before it can receive third reading in the House of Commons...and voting that the bill “would entail an increase in public spending in a way and to an end that is not currently authorized.”

Currently, this bill has not realized that royal recommendation, so I think there's opportunity to make amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.

Again, Bill C-215 amends the Employment Insurance Act by increasing from 15 to 52 the maximum number of weeks for which benefits can be paid in the event of an illness, injury or quarantine. The amendment, NDP-2, seeks to prevent the total number of combined weeks of benefits in subsection 12(6) of the act to be taken into account for benefits paid in the event of an illness, injury or quarantine.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment aims to relax the conditions for the payment of benefits provided for in the act, which requires a royal recommendation. Therefore, I rule amendment NDP-2 inadmissible.

Yes, Ms. Zarrillo.

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

Yes, please, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C-215, in clause 1, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 1 with the following:

(c) despite subsection 12(6), because of a prescribed illness, injury or quaran—

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

I would. Thank you so much.

One thing I wanted to bring up was that today we did talk about the gender lens. We did talk about the fact that in 1972 they were maybe not applying it. As well, we didn't get confirmation that any of the budgetary estimates applied a gender lens, so I would argue that there might not be an increase.

The second thing I wanted to talk about was that Bill C-215 needs to be accompanied by a royal recommendation before it can receive third reading in the House of Commons...and voting that the bill “would entail an increase in public spending in a way and to an end that is not currently authorized.” It's my understanding that this bill itself has not yet received that royal recommendation.

So I would challenge this, Mr. Chair, and I wonder if we could go to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.

I'll give my ruling on this. I have been advised by the legislative clerk that Bill C-215 amends paragraphs 12(3)(c) and 152.14(1)(c) of 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. The amendment seeks to amend subsections 8(2) and 10(10) of the act to add an additional ground of extending the qualifying period and the benefit period for persons in receipt of pregnancy or parental benefits.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment you propose seeks to amend sections of the act that are not modified by Bill C-215, which is not procedurally allowed, and also proposes to broaden the grounds for extending the qualifying period and the benefit period to a new category of persons, which imposes a charge on the treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Would you like to comment, Ms. Zarrillo?

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

Sure. This is on clause 1. I have an amendment that relates basically to stackability. After the testimony on Monday, it was actually quite powerful, the amount of feedback I got from a lot of women who have experienced their benefits expiring in the past. This amendment relates to that.

I want to thank this committee for the grace to be able to bring in this amendment on such short notice based on the testimony on Monday. The amendment is that Bill C-215, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 1 with the following: “(c) despite subsection 12(6), because of a prescribed illness, injury or—

[Émilie Thivierge, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm Émilie Thivierge, and I'm one of the legislative clerks assigned to Bill C-215. I'm here with my colleague to assist the committee with the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, committee members.

I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-215.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing the amendment, who may explain the amendment. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

I, as chair, will review slowly and allow all members to follow the proceedings properly.

Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner, which I take all members of the committee have. As I indicated, there have only been three amendments received. There's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw an amendment.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the main amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then, another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself, and an order to reprint the bill may be required—if amendments are adopted—so the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Again, I would like to welcome back to the committee the two officials from the department whom you met in the first hour. We will not go through introductions. You know who they are.

At this time, I am going to ask the legislative clerks who are here with us, and who will address any legislative questions you may have, to introduce themselves before we begin the clause-by-clause discussion.

[Benoit Cadieux, Director, Special Benefits, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Benoit Cadieux. I'm the director for employment insurance special benefits policy at Employment and Social Development Canada.

Today, I'm joined by my colleague Mona Nandy, who is the director general of employment insurance policy at ESDC.

As you may be aware, in June 2021, Parliament approved, through the Budget Implementation Act, 2021 No. 1, an extension of employment insurance sickness benefits.

This extension increases from 15 to 26 the maximum number of weeks of EI sickness benefits payable to workers, including the self-employed who are registered, when they are unable to work due to illness, injury or quarantine. The target date for this extension to come into effect is the end of 2022. The exact date will be announced later this fall.

The EI program is a labour market program designed to provide short-term income support to workers during temporary absences from work. A key objective of the EI program is to support labour market reintegration, and it is designed with the expectation that claimants will return to work after interruptions resulting from life events or job loss.

In this context, EI sickness benefits are designed to complement other supports available to workers in cases of longer-term illnesses, such as employer-provided benefits and longer-term disability supports.

Roughly one-third of EI claimants use all 15 weeks currently available under EI sickness benefits. Out of this number, close to half do not return to work following their sickness leave. Most of those who do return to work do so within 10 weeks after exhausting their benefits.

Bill C‑215, as introduced, would amend the Employment Insurance Act to extend to 52 weeks the maximum number of weeks of sickness benefits that may be paid to a worker or self-employed person when they are unable to work because of illness, injury or quarantine.

This bill also contains coordinating amendments to ensure that if this bill should receive royal assent before or on the same day as the extension to 26 weeks comes into force, this bill would repeal the provisions related to the extension to 26 weeks so they don't come into force afterwards.

Finally, this bill does not specify any date of entry into force. It is therefore implicit that it will come into force on the day it receives royal assent.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

If you want to deal with it on Monday, that's fine. Thank you, Mrs. Falk.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 15, 2022, the committee will resume its study of Bill C-215, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

I would like to inform all members that the witnesses are appearing today virtually, and they have concluded the technical test. Interpretation services are okay to proceed.

I would like to welcome our witnesses to begin our discussion with five minutes of opening remarks. The witnesses today are officials of the Department of Employment and Social Development. We have Anamika Nandy, director general, employment insurance policy, skills and employment branch; and Benoit Cadieux, director, special benefits, employment insurance policy, skills and employment branch.

You will have five minutes for your opening remarks. It's my understanding that Monsieur Cadieux will provide the opening five-minute statement.

Monsieur Cadieux, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, given the timelines, I believe that we should start our clause‑by‑clause consideration of Bill C‑215, which deals with sickness benefits, as quickly as possible. I don't think we should delay any further. We can go back to the items on the agenda afterwards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

If there's no further discussion, I will call for a vote on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

I have one final item, members. I need direction on a deadline for submission of proposed amendments and a date for the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill currently under consideration by the committee, Bill C-215.

Can I get some direction from the committee on amendments—we're under a tight timeline—and a date for the clause-by-clause?

[José Bazin]

Indeed, when it comes to Bill C‑215, we absolutely have to amend section 12(6) so that everyone can receive the maximum amount of employment insurance and sickness benefits, i.e., 52 weeks.

It is all well and good seeking to change section 12(3)(c), which sets out the maximum amount of employment insurance and sickness benefits that a person can receive, but if we do not amend section 12(6), there will still be problems.

Let me give you an example. In Montreal, we are entitled to a maximum of 36 weeks of regular benefits. That is the maximum period for regular benefits. If I lose my job, I'm entitled to 36 weeks of regular benefits, but if I become sick afterwards. I will not be entitled to more than 14 weeks of sickness benefits under the employment insurance program because I will have already received the maximum amount of benefits. Section 12(6) is very clear on this. As soon as you receive at least a week of regular employment insurance benefits, the maximum that you can receive afterwards is 50 weeks. It is impossible to receive more than 50 weeks of any benefit because you have received regular benefits.

Sometimes, the reverse can also be true. I will give you another example. Say I get sick. I am entitled to 52 weeks of sickness benefits under the employment insurance program. Afterwards, I go back to my job and there's a fire at my place of work. I heard of a similar case recently. There was a fire in the workplace and the person should have received regular employment insurance benefits, which replace normal wages when someone loses their job. However, because that person had already received sickness benefits, they were not entitled to regular benefits due to of section 12(6).

Whichever way you look at it, if you do not amend section 12(6), unemployed workers will not be entitled to wage replacement benefits, whether it be sickness benefits or regular benefits. We really have to proceed with caution here, and that's the reason I would ask the committee to amend Bill C‑215, so that section 12(6) does not cancel out the amendment to section 12(3)(c).

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly, the NDP supports this increase in weeks, and the Bloc does as well. I think it's been spoken of today that it's been brought a number of times in the past by the Bloc and also by the NDP, but there has been some lack of political will from the other parties. I'm hoping that today, through this bill, there is some consensus and we can get this increase in weeks happening.

My first question, Mr. Bazin, is around the stacking of benefits. If Bill C-215, the one we're discussing today, gives us a window to very quickly and efficiently increase those weeks of benefit, will there be any problems around the stacking of benefits? Will there be any risks or losses to other benefits that we should know about?

[José Bazin]

Absolutely.

Receiving EI benefits is the best thing for people who are sick, as it is relatively easy to access.

Earlier, we said that having a medical note allowed us to receive EI sickness benefits. Our fight is also to ensure that everyone has access to benefits, whether they are regular or special benefits. EI sickness benefits are special benefits. We must also ensure that we do not prevent the person receiving EI benefits from receiving EI sickness benefits.

Today, I want to make members of the committee aware of the following: if we do not do this job properly, it could lead to a perverse effect. It could result in some people not receiving EI sickness benefits. This could be the case even if we change the law, as proposed in Bill C‑215. Doing the job right is important.

[José Bazin, Community organizer, Mouvement Action-Chômage de Montréal]

Good afternoon.

I thank the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for allowing the Mouvement action-chômage de Montréal to give its opinion on Bill C‑215. I would first like to say that we are, obviously, in favour of the proposed amendments.

I will divide my five-minute speech into two parts. I would like to make it clear that I will be referring to the sections of the Employment Insurance Act that affect salaried workers. Of course, the same thinking applies to self-employed persons who pay into EI special benefits.

First, I would like to draw the committee's attention to subsection 12(6) of the Employment Insurance Act regarding the general stacking of benefits. Indeed, the amendment to paragraph 12(3)(c) of the act may unfortunately be ineffective for some claimants or, at the very least, may not have the intended effect.

Subsection 12(6) prevents claimants with at least one week of regular benefits from accumulating more than 50 weeks of benefits, all benefits combined. Thus, a claimant who has used regular EI benefits in his or her benefit period will not be able to receive the famous 52 weeks of sickness benefits if he or she becomes ill. The reverse is also true: a claimant who has used 52 weeks of sickness benefits and then loses his or her job will not be able to receive regular EI benefits, despite the fact that illness is one of the reasons for extending the qualifying period under subsection 8(2) of the act.

I would therefore invite the members of the committee to consider this issue, so that the amendment to paragraph 12(3)(c) does not leave a proportion of sick claimants without replacement income. Of course, the simplest way to deal with the perverse effect of subsection 12(6) is to simply repeal the entire section, which is a single sentence. Let us eliminate this sentence from the Employment Insurance Act and thus solve the problem of the general stacking of different EI special benefits after or before regular benefits. By adding the amendment to Bill C‑215 to repeal subsection 12(6) of the act, committee members will be able to correct a potential unfairness to a portion of the unemployed who become ill.

Second, while amending a part of the Employment Insurance Act concerning special benefits, in this case sickness benefits, I would invite the legislator to correct the inequity of the act towards women who have received maternity or parental benefits, or their equivalent from a provincial parental insurance plan. Mothers who have received maternity and parental benefits are left without replacement income if they lose their jobs without having worked a sufficient number of hours to requalify for regular benefits. Yet the federal government considered the situation worrisome enough to allow these mothers to receive the Canada Emergency Response Benefit or the Canada Recovery Benefit during the pandemic. In addition, on January 10, the Social Security Tribunal issued a decision stating that subsections 8(2), 8(5), 10(10) and 12(6) of the Employment Insurance Act violate the equality rights protected by section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would therefore invite the members of the committee to amend Bill C‑215 to correct this violation of the right to equality. To do so, Parliament should amend subsections 8(2) and 10(10) by adding to each an additional ground for extending the qualifying period and the benefit period. For the record, there are already four grounds for extending the qualifying period and the benefit period. This amendment to subsections 8(2) and 10(10) would add a fifth ground.

This fifth ground for extension could simply be written as follows, obviously using the feminine: “She was receiving maternity or parental benefits or their equivalent from a provincial parental insurance plan”. In addition, Parliament should repeal subsection 8(5), as well as subsection 12(6), which I already mentioned in the first part of my statement.

I know that the second part of my intervention is a bit removed from what you are considering in Bill C‑215. Nevertheless, I preferred to talk about it.

With that, I thank the members of the committee for listening to the opinion of the Mouvement action-chômage de Montréal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We'll resume with the second panel, committee members.

Welcome back.

As you are aware, we're studying Bill C-215, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine).

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the two witnesses who are appearing virtually with us today.

You have the choice of speaking in the official language of your choice. To get my attention, please use the “raise hand” icon at the bottom of your screen. If for any reason we lose translation, please get my attention, and we'll suspend while it is corrected. I would also remind you to please direct all questions through the chair.

I would like to begin by welcoming, as an individual, Marie-Hélène Dubé, and from Mouvement Action-Chômage de Montréal, José Bazin.

Each presenter has five minutes.

We will begin with Madame Dubé for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gourde and Mr. Sansfaçon, thank you for your testimony.

It is always troubling to hear about the reality of individuals with an incurable illness—or curable illness, we hope—who are hampered by our inability to support them in these circumstances.

Mr. Gourde, you said our committee is a committee of hope, and I would like you to elaborate on that.

Your Bill C‑215 is the twelfth bill put forward on this matter since 2009. Of the eleven previous ones, four were introduced by the NDP, six by the Bloc Québécois, and one by the Liberal Party. In that case, Denis Coderre was calling for sick benefits to be extended to 50 weeks.

In the last session, the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C‑265, the “Émilie Sansfaçon bill“ , which was unanimously approved by this committee. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Order Paper when the election was called.

Mr. Gourde, what makes you think this new bill will succeed?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you.

I also thank you for moving Bill C‑215; it’s a great contribution.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, getting 52 weeks instead of 15 weeks will cost $8 billion over five years.

Why do you think this is worth it?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also thank Mr. Sansfaçon for being here today. I offer my condolences for his daughter.

Mr. Gourde, I also thank you for being here today.

Mr. Gourde, why do you think that 52 weeks is not enough?

Why did you decide to introduce Bill C‑215?

[Louis Sansfaçon, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Greetings, ladies and gentlemen of the committee.

Thank you for welcoming me here.

I also thank Ms. Chabot, who gave me the opportunity to address you. I am very grateful to her for it.

There’s a great deal of emotion behind the testimony I will attempt to give today, to try and honour the memory of my daughter, Émilie, and, above all, the promise I made to her.

In 2018, Émilie was working as a secretary and bookkeeper for a small construction business. She was diagnosed with stage III colon cancer. Mother of a little three-year-old girl, she came to realize that she would need rounds of chemotherapy, surgeries and radiation treatments in order to survive, and this protocol was certainly going to last several months. Never having faced such a situation, she did not know the amount or length of benefits she was entitled to. In fact, she was entitled to a maximum of 15 weeks of benefits, the same number of weeks since 1971.

With all the wisdom of her 29 years, she thought that by getting directly involved, she could contribute to changing the law. Between 62 rounds of chemotherapy, she came here to Ottawa to raise awareness among decision makers—in other words, you—about the need to improve quality of life for sick workers like her. I supported her throughout the entire process. After nearly three years, on December 17, 2019, she even met personally with Prime Minister Trudeau. Hope was running high.

Bill C-265, whose short title is the Émilie Sansfaçon Act, was tabled by Bloc Quebecois member Ms. Claude DeBellefeuille, who always supported Émilie. It did not receive royal assent. An election was called, and the bill died on the order paper, just like my daughter. It ended the hope for approximately 420,000 workers who pay into employment insurance.

Émilie died on November 5, 2020, without ever seeing an improvement. This simple process, launched by a young citizen who never asked to get sick, faced challenges both medical and financial. Émilie was disappointed. She had lost on both fronts.

On December 15, 2021, Mr. Jacques Gourde, conservative member for Lévis—Lotbinière, tabled Bill C‑215. It’s the latest version of many bills on the matter, and I hope that it will lead to 50 or 52 weeks of benefits. We won’t quibble over two weeks.

A question must be asked: How is it that, election after election, whether they take power or not, certain parliamentarians sometimes vote in favour, sometimes against, a certain bill? In February 2012, Mr. Trudeau voted in favour of Mr. Coderre’s proposal to increase benefits to 52 weeks. This position was a great source of inspiration for Émilie.

Citizens elect their chosen representatives. Every member has the privilege and the duty to participate personally in exercising democracy.

In Quebec, many tens of thousands of people can’t go to work due to illness. Some have been diagnosed with cancer and have to follow a treatment protocol that will go well beyond 15 weeks. According to a report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the majority of sick leave recipients are off work for an average of 41 weeks.

Kelly Masotti, vice-president of advocacy for the Canadian Cancer Society, noted that the average length of treatment for breast cancer or colon cancer was 26 to 37 weeks, not including convalescence.

All of you know that some people, unfortunately, don’t make it. The illness has an impact on a sick person’s daily life, but also on their family, their loved ones and their children. The perverse effect of only 15 weeks of benefits, even 26 weeks, is a slow slide into poverty.

As members or ministers, like me, you won’t have to worry the day after a diagnosis. You are not service sector workers, who aren’t necessarily covered by group insurance or mutual insurance, or who can’t pay for insurance. Personally, I have bone marrow cancer, a bone cancer, and I am covered by insurance.

Those of you who will take part in this decision, tell yourselves that this could happen to a member of your family, a friend, a neighbour, real people. In short, this absurdity is very real. It is insidious and impacts morale almost more than the illness itself. Statistics uphold the law to the detriment of community and solidarity.

It is unjustifiable that in Canada, sick workers have to turn to the funding platforms of this world, like GoFundMe. They have to organize benefit dinners or other activities to pay for their medication or travel to hospital, among other things.

On May 28, 2021, the Hon. Carla Qualtrough announced in the House of Commons that Canadians wanted and deserved a flexible employment insurance system that meets their needs.

I agree with her, but the 26-week period does not meet the needs or the goals to be achieved.

Of course, Mr. Chair, you will not see sick workers participating in a protest, sign in hand, marching the streets. They are too busy taking care of themselves and, above all, surviving financially.

I know full well that we have gone through a pandemic. And now, we are going through inflation. What, then, will these sick workers do in the face of inflation?

The pandemic caused delays for surgeries, but also for making diagnoses and taking charge of patients. Therefore, from the beginning, precious weeks that should have been dedicated to healing and returning to work were wasted. Once again, workers are the ones paying the price.

You all agree that a healthy environment promotes healing. However, the stress of the unknown in the face of an illness, compounded by the financial reality and challenge of having to feed oneself, pay bills and take care of one’s family become a source of mental exhaustion. That certainly does not help people return to work.

Sooner or later, a sick worker, having exhausted their weeks of benefits, will have to sell all they have and drain their savings to become eligible for social programs, under provincial responsibility.

To conclude, I highlight that the Hon. Carla Qualtrough also said that the Employment Insurance Act needs to be modernized. Again, I agree with her, but let’s not do things by halves. If we divide 50 by 2, we’re close to 26.

I will take the liberty of repeating the words of Ms. Marie‑Hélène Dubé, whom I congratulate for her determination and courage. She said that the goal to achieve is allowing workers to take care of themselves with dignity and respect.

One day, you will all have to rise in the House and represent the thousands of people who elected you. In every one of your ridings, workers are going through the same situation as Émilie. As a citizen, I expect every single one of you to vote with your heart and the mantle of responsibility you wear. I ask you to remember your commitment and the privilege you have to change things for those who have no voice.

In Émilie’s memory, thank you.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 37 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022, but today, at this session, we'll all be here in the committee room. To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. Click the microphone icon to activate your own mike, which will be controlled by the proceedings and verification officer. I will manage the speaking order.

You may speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available. I would ask members to speak slowly and clearly for the benefit of the translators for the interpretation services. If at any time we lose translation, please get my attention and I will suspend until the situation is corrected.

I would like to remind all participants that taking screenshots or photos is not allowed in the room. Again, should any technical issues arise, please get my attention, and I will suspend while they are clarified.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 15, 2022, the committee will commence its study of Bill C-215, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine).

At this time I would like to welcome the witnesses to begin the discussion with five minutes of opening remarks. We will begin with our colleague Monsieur Gourde, the MP for Lévis—Lotbinière. We also have another witness in the first hour, Louis Sansfaçon, who is appearing as an individual.

Welcome, gentlemen. I will now move to Mr. Gourde to begin his five minutes of opening remarks.

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.

Employment Insurance Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-215 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from June 13 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.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Goulding, I found your testimony very moving.

The Bloc Québécois has been working very hard for several years now to extend the period of EI benefits to 50 weeks for certain serious illnesses. The House of Commons also passed a motion to that effect. The House of Commons is currently considering Bill C‑215, which seeks to extend EI benefits to 52 weeks.

Do you think this measure could help people suffering from, for example, the most severe form of long COVID‑19 to care for themselves with more dignity?

[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.

[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.

[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—

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Bill C‑215—Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on March 22 by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader regarding Bill C-215, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), standing on the Order Paper in the name of the member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

During his intervention, the parliamentary secretary argued that Bill C-215 seeks to increase the maximum number of weeks during which sickness benefits can be paid, which would entail a new and distinct charge to the consolidated revenue fund. He pointed out that, as there is currently no statutory authority or appropriation authorizing this new and distinct charge, a royal recommendation is required, as required by the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Standing Orders of the House.

As indicated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 838, “Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative.”

I have carefully studied Bill C-215. It would amend paragraphs 12(3)(c) and 152.14(1)(c) of the Employment Insurance Act in order to increase the maximum number of weeks during which benefits can be paid in the event of an illness, injury or quarantine from 15 to 52 to weeks. It seems clear, therefore, that the bill seeks to increase the duration of the period of employment insurance benefits.

The Chair has already ruled on questions similar to the one that concerns us today. It was effectively the case in rulings on almost identical bills in 2006 and 2021.

In the ruling of April 15, 2021, on Bill C-265, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), found at page 5691 of Debates, the Chair also indicated that the bill had to be accompanied by a royal recommendation since it sought to increase the maximum number of weeks during which benefits can be paid in the event of an illness, injury or quarantine from 15 weeks to 50.

In light of the analysis of the bill standing in the name of the member for Lévis—Lotbinière and the precedents cited, the Chair is of the opinion that by amending the Employment Insurance Act to increase the maximum number of weeks during which benefits can be paid in the event of an illness, injury or quarantine from 15 weeks to 52, Bill C-215 would entail an increase in public spending in a way and to an end that is not currently authorized. As a result, the Chair concludes that it must be accompanied by a royal recommendation before it can proceed to a final vote in the House at the third reading stage.

Meanwhile, however, the next time the House considers this bill, the debate will be on the motion for second reading, and that motion shall be put to a vote at the end of the second reading debate.

I thank all members for their attention.

Employment Insurance Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

Employment Insurance Sickness Benefits

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

Mr. Speaker, again this year, more than 151,000 Canadians will need more than 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits to recover from a serious illness such as cancer. We can do more to help them.

Bill C-215 would increase the maximum number of weeks of EI sickness benefits from 15 to 52 weeks for Canadians going through a difficult period in their lives.

I want to point out the courage, determination and resilience of those suffering from a serious illness. By passing Bill C-215, members of the House will be showing their support for these individuals and demonstrating that they have the wisdom to set aside partisanship and provide all Canadians with additional financial security.

I invite Canadians to follow the debate, which will start tomorrow, March 30.

Royal Recommendation for Bill C-215

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on this particular point of order in response to your February 28, 2022, statement respecting the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-215, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, illness, injury or quarantine, sponsored by the member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

Without commenting on the merits of the bill, I suggest that the provision in the bill to extend sickness benefits to 52 weeks would seek to authorize a new and distinct charge on the consolidated revenue fund not authorized in statute. In instances when there is no existing statutory authority or an appropriation to cover the new and distinct charge, a royal recommendation is in fact required.

The provisions of the bill amending the Employment Insurance Act would increase the maximum number of weeks for employment insurance sickness benefits. This increase in the number of weeks of benefits is authorized, once passed, by royal recommendation attached to the bill. The royal recommendation not only fixes the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund, but also the objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications of provisions subject to the royal recommendation.

Speakers have consistently ruled that bills seeking to increase the length of a benefit, change the qualifications or alter the conditions for employment insurance benefits need to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Let me draw to the attention of members a few germane rulings on this matter.

On April 22, 2009, the Speaker ruled on Bill C-241, an Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, removal of waiting period. The Speaker stated:

[T]he chair is of the opinion that the provisions of Bill C-241 would authorize a new and distinct charge on the public treasury. Since such spending is not covered by the terms of any existing appropriation, I will therefore decline to put the question on third reading of this bill in its present form...

On June 3, 2009, the Speaker ruled on Bill C-280, an Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, qualification for and entitlement to benefits. In the ruling, the Deputy Speaker stated:

On March 23, 2007, in a ruling on Bill C-265... the Chair had concluded that:

“It is abundantly clear to the Chair that such changes to the employment insurance program... would have the effect of authorizing increased expenditures from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized.

Therefore, it appears to the Chair that those provisions of the bill which relate to increasing Employment Insurance benefits and easing the qualifications required to obtain them would require a royal recommendation.”

Having heard no new compelling argument to reach a conclusion that is different than the one concerning Bill C-265, I will decline to put the question on third reading of Bill C-280 in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

A more recent and directly relevant case is to be found in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities' consideration of Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, additional regular benefits, the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, restriction on eligibility, and another Act in response to COVID-19 on March 11, 2021. This bill sought, among other things, to increase the number of weeks of EI regular benefits available by up to 24 weeks to a maximum of 50 weeks for claims that were made between September 27, 2020, and September 25, 2021.

During the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, the member for Elmwood—Transcona proposed an amendment that attempted to increase the number of weeks of payments to an employment insurance claimant in the case of prescribed illness, injury, or quarantine from 15 to 50 weeks, therefore allowing people to have access to these payments for longer than they can currently under the Employment Insurance Act.

In proposing the amendment, the chair of the committee ruled the amendment as inadmissible because it required a royal recommendation. The chair ruled:

Bill C-24 seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act by increasing the number of weeks paid under part 1 of that act under certain circumstances.

This amendment attempts to increase the number of weeks of payments to a claimant, in the case of prescribed illness, injury or quarantine, from 15 to 50 weeks, therefore allowing people to have access to these payments for longer than they can currently under the Employment Insurance Act.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 772:

“Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.”

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment as proposed requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury, and I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible.

A royal recommendation may only be obtained by a minister of the Crown on the advice of the Governor General. In the absence of a royal recommendation, Bill C-215 may proceed through the legislative process in the House up until the end of the debate at third reading. In cases in which the Speaker has ruled that the royal recommendation is required, and it has not been provided before the third reading vote, the Speaker refuses to put the question at third reading and orders the bill discharged from the Order Paper.

I submit that this is the case before you with respect to Bill C-215.

Precedents clearly suggest that a bill or motion that seeks to incur new and distinct expenditures from the consolidated revenue fund in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized require a royal recommendation.

Revocation of the Declaration of a Public Order Emergency

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The House will soon begin Private Members' Business for the first time in this Parliament. I would therefore like to make a brief statement to remind all members about the procedures governing Private Members' Business and the responsibilities of the Chair in the management of this process.

As members know, certain constitutional and procedural realities constrain the Speaker and members insofar as legislation is concerned. One such procedural point concerns whether or not a private member’s bill requires a royal recommendation. The Speaker has underscored this issue numerous times in past Parliaments.

As noted on page 835 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition:

Under the Canadian system of government, the Crown alone initiates all public expenditure and Parliament may authorize only spending which has been recommended by the Governor General. This prerogative, referred to as the “financial initiative of the Crown”, is the basis essential to the system of responsible government and is signified by way of the “royal recommendation”.

The requirement for a royal recommendation is grounded in section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Its language echoes Standing Order 79(1), which reads:

This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.

As a result, any bill proposing to spend public funds for a new and distinct purpose, or effecting an appropriation of public funds, must be accompanied by a message from the Governor General approving the expenditure. This message, known formally as the royal recommendation, can only be transmitted to the House by a minister of the Crown.

A private member's bill that requires a royal recommendation may be introduced and considered right up until third reading on the assumption that a royal recommendation will be provided by a minister. However, if none is produced by the conclusion of the third reading stage, the Speaker may not put the question for passage at third reading.

Following the establishment or the replenishment of the order of precedence, the Chair has developed a practice of reviewing items so that the House can be alerted to bills that, at first glance, appear to infringe on the financial prerogative of the Crown. The aim of this practice is to allow members the opportunity to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views about the need for those bills to be accompanied or not by a royal recommendation.

The order of precedence having been established on February 9, 2022, I wish to inform the House of two bills which preoccupy the Chair. These are: Bill C-215, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), standing in the name of the member for Lévis—Lotbinière; and Bill C-237, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act, standing in the name of the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel.

I would encourage members who would like to make arguments regarding the requirement for a royal recommendation with respect to these bills, or with regard to any other bill now on the order of precedence, to do so at an early opportunity.

I thank all the members for their attention.

Employment Insurance Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-215, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce, in both official languages, this employment insurance bill. Canadians confronting serious illness need more than 15 weeks of sickness benefits to recover before going back to work. This bill will support Canadians while they go through the recovery process and get better.

I know I can count on members to debate this bill wisely and constructively.

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