Human Resources Committee on Feb. 28th, 2007

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

When we're talking about trust and people who have abused it, let's not forget that the polls say that the worst ones to look at are the politicians, because we are at the bottom of the list. We have no lesson to give to Canadians. We should trust Canadians more.

Anyway, that being said, when we look at a person having cancer and having treatment, do you think that it could be counterproductive to the treatment if the person walks home and says to his wife and four kids that he will have no more earnings after 15 weeks?

[Kenneth Kyle]

That's a real issue. That's a real problem. We don't want the stress on the family. If people are under stress, they're not going to recover as quickly from cancer. There are a lot of psychological problems that attend cancer, and if people have assurance of a little bit more income and they can afford the drugs and can afford this and that, then I think they actually will end up recovering and being cancer survivors a lot quicker.

[Manuel Arango]

I would add that there's a whole pile of literature that indicates very clearly the impact that income has on health and that stress and psycho-social factors have on health. Lots of work has been done, and there is lots of evidence. It's very clear that it does have an impact.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Heart problems are also linked to stress. If a person who has had a stroke is exposed to stress, we can automatically put two and two together.

[Manuel Arango]

Absolutely. That's absolutely correct, and it's documented through a lot of research studies, as well.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Is there any more time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have 15 seconds.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I have 15 minutes. Oh, that's 15 seconds.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

There already is a system in place. The doctors already give out certificates when you're ill. There's a system in place. There are criteria. The HRDC people know how it works. They know the doctors who come in. That is all there, so it's not like we have to really do a whole new system. The system is there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Godin, Mr. Eyking.

We'll now move to Mr. Lake. Five minutes, sir.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I want to start by just saying to all the witnesses, including Mr. Eyking, that I really do appreciate the things you had to say—and Mr. Kyle particularly. My own father-in-law passed away about six years ago of cancer, after a four-year battle, and a lot of the things he had to say regarding the challenges ring true to me.

I can honestly say that because of Mr. Eyking bringing up the bill in the first place, I have more awareness of the issue than I would have had in the past, and that's a good thing right off the start.

My only concern would be whether EI is the right tool for the job. I think it's pretty clear that something needs to be done soon. This is a real challenge. We just have to figure out what the right tool is.

I note that we recently supported a motion by the Liberal whip, Ms. Karen Redman, to study CPP disability coverage. I guess I was a bit confused. There is an amendment from a member of this committee, I believe, to have the committee delay reporting back until the fall on that. I think it needs to be studied sooner than that.

I guess I'll speak to that first, with my first question. It's been pointed out that extending EI sickness benefits will have implications for CPP disability. Has there been any study of the impacts this bill might have on CPP disability benefits, Mr. Eyking?

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I don't know if there's any study out there. As I said before, CPP is mostly designed for people who are not coming back to work. It takes longer for them to receive it. They have to go through quite a process. Some of them don't receive it until up to a year, by the time it's all gone through the works. CPP really doesn't take care of the people who are going through life and who need that bridge, because they're productive people and they're going to go back into society and work. It's almost a separate thing.

We often have that question coming to our office, where we ask, “Can we help this person with CPP?” Well, that person has cancer, and by the time it goes through the process, it's not happening. It just takes too long.

So CPP should be there, but it's for a different reason. It's more about permanent disabilities. It's for people who are not coming back.

You asked the other question, whether the EI fund is the right place. It definitely is, for various reasons.

First of all, as I mentioned to Mr. Godin, the mechanism is in place. The doctors know where they have to fill out the forms. The people in HRDC are there. They're on the front line. They're dealing with it. They know what needs to be done.

The other thing is—and we all realize it—the employers and the employees are paying into the system.

Technically, what we're trying to do is bridge people to get them back into the workforce. So if both are really paying into the system for the benefit of the employee and the employer, there's no better fit than this extra, because that's what exactly it will be doing. It will be helping that person bridge, to help the employee-employer.... That way, the user is technically paying for something that they will receive.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

A question regarding the history of this.... It is my understanding that there have been, I think, private members' bills in the past to extend EI sickness benefits to 50 weeks. Are you aware of that?

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I'm sure there were all kinds of bills put forward on EI, but not particularly this one.

I think, and I said it in my opening remarks, this is definitely a bill for our time. Twenty or thirty years ago, people were having strokes and getting cancer and were not able to come back or were not able to work. Now there seem to be more people having strokes and cancer, but they're getting cured. So I think this is a bill for its time. Maybe it would not have been as applicable years ago because people were not as liable to come back into the workforce.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

In the interest of being consistent with my questioning--I think you might have been here for part of the last discussion we were having—I'm curious as to why 50 weeks. What kind of a study, what kind of research went in to determine that?

Secondly, has there been any study in terms of the financial implications of the bill?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Eyking—30 seconds left, sir.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Why the 50 weeks? There are two reasons, I guess. One is based on the two major illnesses that we have out there. It seems to take a year. Some of it goes a little longer, some a little shorter. A year is an average, whether you have to go through the chemotherapy process or you have to go through rehabilitation.

It also dovetails with where the whole EI program is on maternity leave. In that sort of vein, it takes a year for somebody to do things properly when you're dealing with a medical situation.

We've seen with the illnesses that are out there, that are serious enough, it takes around that, but this doesn't necessarily say they all have to take a year.

Right now I think there are about 300,000 who apply for that 15 weeks and there's only one-third who use the full 15 weeks. So it's the same thing.

When you're dealing with the major illnesses, it's about a year. If it's any more, then there's a tendency to go to the CPP. If you're going to be any more than a year, you have a pretty serious condition, so you'll probably end up going in the other direction.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Mr. Cuzner, welcome to the human resources committee. You've got four minutes.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

That's great, and it's great to be among such open-minded and compassionate people who are entertaining a good piece of legislation today.

I want to commend my colleague for putting forward this piece of work. I have to admit it's the first time I've ever heard a member of Parliament, when referring to CPP disability, use the words “apply” and “simply” in the same sentence. In the experience I've had, they usually don't mesh, but I think that underlines the significance of putting forward this piece of legislation. Again, as my colleague, Monsieur Lessard, had indicated, this was a recommendation that came out of a study that was done in 2004 by an all-party committee as well, and I commend my colleague for bringing this forward.

There are two questions, if I could ask Mr. Arango one first and then go to Mark with the second one.

The information you shared, Mr. Kyle, with regard to cancer before, during, and in the follow-up, and the situation with immune suppression following chemo, I think is important to note. And your work on stroke is also important.

With heart and with corrective surgery, the surgeries that are being done now, typically what's the duration from the diagnosis through to the treatment, through to recovery, and through to working hard again? Is there a typical time span we can refer to?

[Manuel Arango]

I think the period from diagnosis to treatment really varies, so I can't give you a standard number for that, but definitely the number I have is post-treatment, and that is eight to 12 weeks. But as I mentioned, for certain people who have diabetes, etc., it can be more than that, so 15 weeks plus, but between diagnosis and treatment, there's not as much disability as there is post-treatment in the case of bypass surgeries, where it's very disabling.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Okay.

Mark, I guess this is coming off the question Mr. Lake had posed. Do you have a ballpark figure as to what the annual percentage of EI claims that would be deemed medical in nature might be?

In your consultations with officials from HRSDC, were there any indications there may have been any abuse of that system, or was it one aspect of the EI program that they felt was well administered?

And finally, do you anticipate you would need further checks and balances or any further protocol to pursue this extended period of benefit?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Eyking, about 45 seconds left, sir.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you for the question.

I don't know the exact percentage of all EI claimants, but we're hitting around 95,000 right now with this one. I think we're at 300,000. I don't know where I got this figure. It was 300,000, so one-third is the medical part. That's the percentage.

When you talk about the abuse, we did our homework. We went to the office of HRSDC and we asked them what was coming in and out their door. They were so glad somebody was going to address this, because these people are coming back to them and they have to give them bad news.

They didn't seem to think there was abuse, especially with this one. They said guys are getting unemployment and they're babysitting somebody or there are all kinds of abuses out there, but not with the medical one, because you need the doctors. They know the doctors in the region. They know this doctor, whether he does hip replacements or whatever, so they know the community. They know the doctors and they know they're legitimate. They pretty well told us this is one of the few areas with the least amount of abuse because of that system, which carries it into where we're going, and it would be the same thing where you would get more specialists in there.

On checks and balances, I think there's no doubt you'd have to do a little more homework on this than somebody who has a broken ankle and was getting ten weeks. You would probably have to have a revisitation; maybe a cancer specialist would come and do a reassessment. I think that would be pertinent, so whoever's doing the claim would say they needed a 40-week checkup, to come in and say they're almost cured, they need one more radiation treatment.

So I think you would need a little more documentation from the doctors or specialists as you went along. I think that should be put in there, which would make sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Eyking and Mr. Cuzner.

We're going to move now to Mr. Lessard. You have four minutes.