Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses.
I say this very respectfully, but we will not be able to get clarification from you on certain questions because there have been political overtones. I understand that you have responded to a colleague in this sense.
Have you made any recommendations? Many bills have been tabled over the last 50 years. All the studies done by experts or scientists on the number of weeks of benefits needed to recover from a serious or long illness—we often talk about cancer, but there are other types of illnesses—show that it takes an average of 41 weeks of benefits.
At the very time of the introduction of the 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits, the Parliamentary Budget Officer was saying that even then it was below what it was 50 years ago.
Currently, I have the impression that we are being told about the bright side. Indeed, many workers have more generous private insurance. But what we want is for benefits to be used for workers who pay into EI and who, in 60% of cases, have no group or private insurance.
Self-employed workers can purchase the special benefits for a premium. This is not the case for regular EI benefits, which affect many workers. In 2022, the government chose to provide 26 weeks of benefits in its budget. It did so despite the result of scientific studies, despite a report from this committee that made recommendations well before the reform consultations, and despite Bill C‑265, passed unanimously by our committee, that increased the duration of benefits from 15 to 50 weeks.
From the department's perspective, after all you've heard, do you at least agree that 26 weeks of benefits will not meet all the needs of workers who pay into EI and who would be entitled to additional benefits? Do you also agree that some workers will be left behind?
