Human Resources Committee on Feb. 28th, 2007

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

If you could just let me comment on that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Trust me, you're way over time. We're going to end it there.

I want to thank you for coming today, Ms. Deschamps.

We're going to suspend for just two or three minutes until we can bring our new witness, Mr. Eyking, in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, December 5, we're examining Bill C-278, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act on benefits for illness, injury, or quarantine.

We have Mr. Eyking here, and he is going to give us his presentation. I believe we also have Mr. Kyle, from the Canadian Cancer Society, as well as Mr. Arango, from the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

I certainly want to welcome all of you here today.

How are we going to do this, Mr. Eyking? Are you going to share your time?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We'll do that, and then we'll do the same thing as last time. Because we have bells at 5:30, we're going to have one round of five minutes of questions and a second round of four minutes.

You guys can go ahead and give us your presentation on Bill C-278.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and committee members. This is the first time I've been a witness at a committee, after six years of asking questions.

I'd also like to thank my two witnesses here today. They've helped a lot on this bill and have given us a lot of background information. Manuel is from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, and Ken's from the Canadian Cancer Society. They're going to take three minutes each to give their perspectives, and then we'll be open for questions.

As you know, my bill is Bill C-278. It's a bill to increase EI sickness benefit eligibility from 15 weeks to 50 weeks due to a prescribed illness, injury, or quarantine.

When the EI Act was passed in the late 1990s, sickness benefits were provided in the spirit of compassion and support for someone who has to leave the job market temporarily due to illness. This financial support is intended to allow an individual to focus on their treatment and get well, so that they can return to the work force as soon as possible.

Current legislation allows the claimant to receive up to a maximum of 15 weeks. The time span for which a claimant is eligible is determined by a medical certificate from a health care professional, attesting to the person's inability to work and stating the probable duration of the illness.

Many of us have had constituents, friends, and family members who have experienced financial hardship as they recovered from a debilitating disease such as cancer, heart, or respiratory disease, or any other of the many serious afflictions that we face as Canadians. A persistent scenario, however, and one familiar to many of the MPs here and to many of your staff—we had it in our office—is that we have people who have applied for EI sickness benefits and have received the full fifteen weeks, but have found themselves incapable of returning to work.

A 2004 survey of women fighting breast cancer revealed that a full 76% of the respondents reported being off work for more than the 15-week period. One of our local doctors, Dr. Ron MacCormick, head oncologist at the Cape Breton Cancer Centre, will attest that it can take at least one year after treatment for cancer before the patient will start to regain their energy. In fact, most oncologists will tell you that treatment surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation alone can take up to a year.

The harsh reality is that diseases such as these are attacking people of all ages. The unfortunate part is that these people still potentially have lots of years of work left ahead of them. Moreover, if we don't enact programs to bridge that gap when they are sick, we will continue to be faced with people returning to work too early, with an inherent potential of relapse.

Too many are facing unnecessary financial stress at a time when they should be directing 100% of their energies toward battling their ailments and recovering. No Canadian, nor any of their loved ones, should be left trying to figure out where they're going to get the money to pay the rent, buy groceries, or pay to heat their home.

Mr. Chair, there remains a misconception that a claimant who has maximized EI sickness benefits can simply apply for Canada Pension Plan disability benefits. As many MPs would know, the criteria for this program are strict, and most often patients are denied because they're not considered 100% disabled. The small number who do meet the criteria are faced with a three-month application process, and there's a long waiting period before the CPP disability kicks in.

Once again, let me state that only a small percentage of people will be awarded CPP disability. We also need to recognize—and this is very important—that not all employers, as many of you know, offer long-term disability programs.

It is evident that a one-size-fits-all approach is failing sick Canadians, a fact realized by a subcommittee of this committee in the last Parliament. Among the recommendations from that committee was to increase the number of weeks that sickness benefits can be claimed. The department's 2005 employment insurance monitoring and assessment report states: “About 32% of sickness beneficiaries in 2004/05 used the entire 15 weeks of benefits to which they were entitled.” This portion has been relatively stable in recent years, suggesting that for some types of claimants, 15 weeks is not enough.

Determining exactly how many Canadians need extra help is quite hard to quantify, given that the length of time a claimant would receive benefits is decided by an independent source—namely, a doctor. The 2004-05 data, however, suggest a potential maximum 95,000 claimants would have been entitled to more weeks of sickness benefits under Bill C-278. Based on a 2005 monitoring and assessment report, we can assume that a small proportion of these 95,000 would be claiming benefits to the full 50 weeks.

I mentioned my supporters here, but the list of stakeholder supporters forBill C-278 is substantial. It includes letters of support; we have letters of support from the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Lung Association, the Cape Breton Cancer Centre, social workers of Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, and many front-line health workers.

Mr. Chairman, we also received support from such labour organizations as the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Auto Workers.

I would urge you to follow their lead and support this bill. This bill is a bill for our time. EI sickness benefits remain the only viable vehicle to help alleviate the financial burden for individuals suffering from a major illness, and for whom 15 weeks is simply not enough to get better and return to work.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's my portion. I'm going to pass it on to my witness.

[Kenneth Kyle, Director, Public Issues, Canadian Cancer Society]

Thank you.

First off, let me thank all parties and all members for their support for the Canadian strategy for cancer control. This is a wonderful thing, and I think this bill fits nicely within that.

The Canadian Cancer Society, on behalf of its 220,000 volunteers across the country, welcomes this opportunity to address the issue of the employment insurance illness benefit. We congratulate committee members for tackling this important health issue.

I will present five reasons to show why 15 weeks of benefits is not long enough for cancer patients.

Number one, an individual may have been ill or unable to work for quite a while before he or she applies for EI benefits. In the case of a cancer patient, there would have undoubtedly been waiting times for diagnostic tests and surgery before receiving a diagnosis, and a recovery waiting period prior to the start of treatment.

Second, once started, treatment is typically spread over many months, and recovery can take several more months.

Third, individuals facing serious illness have many collateral financial stresses, including the cost of uninsured treatment and drugs, travel costs for specialized treatment, special diets, and non-prescribed medical supplies. Temporary income replacement of longer duration would greatly relieve many of these burdens. As has been referred to earlier, a 2004 Canadian breast cancer network survey of nearly 500 women with breast cancer found that there is a significant, unexpected, and stressful financial impact on women diagnosed with breast cancer and on their families. When asked whether 15 weeks of employment insurance benefits were enough to get them through treatment, 75% of respondents said they were not long enough, and 76% of respondents reported being off work for over 15 weeks.

Fourth, chemo patients can be immune-suppressed for a period of time after completion of treatment and thus need to remain segregated from groups, extending the optimal recovery period.

Fifth, even after an individual completes treatment for a serious illness, there are many vague lingering effects, although medical documentation is difficult. For example, chemotherapy patients report concentration and endurance deficits—they call this “chemo fog”—fatigue, personality changes, and the like; these deficits impact their ability to perform job tasks at safe or pre-condition levels. Psychological issues around serious illness and suitability for return to work may be poorly documented, but they are nonetheless very real.

For many patients the recovery from the effects of cancer often takes many months. Requiring recovering cancer patients to return to the workforce before they have regained some measure of improved health is to put in jeopardy the patients' and their families' prospects for recovery.

We all bear the burden when a patient returns too early to the workforce. When their recovery falters and their health suffers, there are increased costs, not only to the health care system but also to family life, the economy, and other contributions of individuals to society.

Bill C-278 is a good bill. The Canadian Cancer Society urges committee members to support it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Kyle.

Now we'll go to Mr. Arango for his statement.

[Manuel Arango, Assistant Director, Government Relations, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the perspective of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada regarding Bill C-278.

Let me begin by commending Mr. Eyking for introducing this important initiative, which could help many people across the country.

Today I will focus briefly on the impact that this bill could have on those afflicted with heart disease and particularly stroke.

Heart disease and stroke are the leading causes of death, hospitalization, and drug prescriptions, and are the largest disease-based cost drivers on the Canadian economy.

First, I will speak briefly about the implications of this bill for those afflicted with heart disease. There are some instances in which this bill could assist those recovering from heart bypass surgeries. We know that those undergoing bypass surgeries generally can return to work within eight to twelve weeks. However, those who have existing co-morbidities such as diabetes or depression and those who have manual labour employment could take longer before returning to work; that is, potentially more than 15 weeks, so these people could benefit from an extension in benefits.

More pertinent, however, for the purpose of our discussion today, are those people afflicted by stroke, which is more of a disabling disease. Of those 15,000 Canadians who died from stroke in 2003, approximately 1,300 were under the age of 65. Knowing that approximately 80% of those who have a stroke survive, we can estimate that each year about 5,200 Canadians survive a stroke under the age of 65.

One study relevant to this age demographic has suggested that only 20% will return to gainful employment within the ensuing three years after their stroke, and few will return to work within a year. Naturally, some of these survivors would be severely impaired and would presumably qualify for CPP disability. However, many of those with moderate to minor disability would not qualify for CPP. This group would benefit from an extension of the benefits beyond 15 weeks.

We also know from another study examining stroke survivors between the ages of 15 and 45 that the average time to return to work was about eight months. In Canada, this particular group would number around 1,000 people and would very clearly benefit from an extension. I would also point out that 1,000 people would not pose a huge burden on the EI system.

Finally, I would also like to indicate, as many of the committee members already know, that income has a significant impact on health. As such, providing income support for those who are ill longer than 15 weeks can help to maintain health and consequently further increase the likelihood of getting stroke survivors back to work faster and improving productivity.

Aside from this, we also have to remember to take into account the human and compassionate side of this issue; that is, the need to help individuals and families cope with the difficulties associated with major illnesses such as heart disease and stroke.

In conclusion, it is the foundation's perspective that extending the EI benefit beyond 15 weeks will benefit those afflicted with heart disease and stroke.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Eyking, as well as Mr. Kyle and Mr. Arango.

We are going to do the same thing we did the first hour. That will be a first round of five minutes, followed up by a second round of four minutes, so that we can finish.

The first member is Mr. Savage. You have five minutes, sir.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to congratulate Mr. Eyking. This is a very important and timely bill. As a Nova Scotian MP, I am delighted and proud of you today. We have two other Nova Scotia colleagues, the Honourable Robert Thibault and the seldom honourable Rodger Cuzner, here in his support.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

So I want to congratulate you, Mr. Eyking. I also want to acknowledge the hard work—I've met with you, and I know the hard work that Lindsay MacPhee of your staff has done in researching and working on this. She is someone we all have a great deal of respect for. Also, Ken Kyle has been a really strong advocate. He has appeared before the finance committee and the health committee before on a lot of issues. The Canadian Cancer Society is a leader on a lot of advocacy issues, and there is my old friend Manuel Arango, from my days on the board of the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

To have the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Cancer Society here indicates the seriousness of this issue. These are the two biggest disablers in Canada—not you two—cancer, and heart disease and stroke. So this is really a very important bill. We have all been touched by heart disease and by cancer specifically.

I would like to ask Mr. Eyking if there was any particular inspiration for him for this bill, whether it was a person, individual, or family member, a friend or somebody who inspired him to work on this bill, if he is comfortable in answering that.

Also, I would ask him if he has had a chance to have a look at what other countries are doing on this issue.

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

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mike. I also commend you. You're no stranger to the health problems people face, especially with your dad being a doctor, and with the work you've done on this committee.

Why did I do this bill? I guess when I first got elected, probably six or seven years ago, I came up here and found out what a private member's bill was all about. You find out. I remember talking to Herb Gray, and he said, “A private member's bill is a bill that a member puts forward when there is something he believes in and that is going to help people. Some make it, and some don't, and some really affect the people of the country.” He said, “Don't take it lightly. If you're going to do a private member's bill, try to do one that benefits most Canadians.”

I always thought about that. Of course, we were in government for quite a few years. Last year I was thinking about what kind of private member's bill I could do.

I had a staff meeting. Of course, many MPs here know that there are many people who come to your office with all kinds of problems. One of the situations that was most heart-wrenching in our office was that of people coming in who were getting caught between the cracks. They have an illness, and they're waiting for their EI, and they're also going through this whole stressful period.

Then I talked to my roommate Rodger Cuzner, and he was on the committee. He mentioned that this thing was looked at before. So that's where we started with it, and then we started getting support, and people were encouraging us, especially people from home. Once it started, we started getting e-mails from people across the country. So that gave us the inspiration to go. We had good support in the House with it, so that's where it went.

Of course, as you know, you have to do your homework on it. We had to get some research done on numbers. We also talked to our local HRDC people.

I know I don't have too much time for your question, but you asked what other countries are dealing with this or have this situation. Most of the European countries already have.

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have one minute and ten seconds.

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

Most European countries already have a bridge there. They don't rely on companies to bridge that gap for people who have an illness.

I think it first started in western Germany about ten years ago, and then in Sweden. In most of the European countries it's kind of a norm now, especially as they have entered the EU. Most of them have that legislation in place to help people bridge the gap from when they have an illness so they can get back into the workforce.

These countries see it not as welfare or as a gift or whatever you call it. They want their people to stay productive in society. If they're coming out of production or coming out of the workforce, they want to make sure that they're bridged to get back in. That's where they see the benefit of it. It's not necessarily a welfare thing. It's a bridge to get them back into society and back working as a productive citizen. We found out that those are their reasons for doing it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Eyking. Thank you, Mr. Savage.

We are now going to move to the Bloc. Mr. Lessard, you have five minutes.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Of course, I too would like to congratulate our colleague Mr. Eyking on this initiative. We completely concur with the objective. I would also like to thank both witnesses for being here today.

You know, personally, I think this again gives real meaning to the work we should be doing here as members, that is, introducing bills or regulations that will help those who need it most.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the remarkable work of volunteers who work with people with health problems. Mr. Kyle mentioned earlier that his organization has more than 220,000 volunteers. The work they do is extraordinary. They are often referred to as natural caregivers, as though it were natural for them to make up for a shortcoming on the part of the government. People will generally help their loved ones out of the goodness of their hearts, and they do not need support in any way.

However, in other circumstances, they are forced to stop working for a certain period of time. Mr. Eyking told us earlier that 32% of people who use what is known as compassionate leave do so for the maximum period, which is 15 weeks. This shows that 32% of these people needed more time. It is a stable ratio. The average is nine weeks a year and, over the years, it has been increasing by about 1%. Thus, we see that it is stable. So we are not too far off in the assessment of the costs involved, especially since there seems to be a consensus on this, I believe.

I am pleased to see here again today two of our colleagues, Mr. Cuzner and Mr. Godin, who were here in 2004 when we worked on the recommendations for the EI reforms. There were 28 recommendations. Recommendation no. 27 specifically addresses this. If we are to be consistent, we should support your bill. If we are to be consistent, we should all, including the Conservatives, endorse this support.

I want to be very clear. I have a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Lake's situation. We found ourselves earlier hearing an argument that has to do with another bill. In this case, there is no question of overlapping responsibilities. It is a federal responsibility that has to do with money held by the federal government, which must fulfill its responsibilities.

Mr. Chair, I will not drone on about the need for this bill. The question I would like to ask our three guests is the following. The current prevailing argument states that we could undermine the protection of workers in terms of their private insurance or group employment insurance. It seems to me that it is up to the insurers to adapt accordingly. They have always done so in the past, when new legislation is adopted. I would like you to talk a little bit about this. We have even received letters about it. I have before me a letter from the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. I do not blame these people for writing to us to express their concerns, but I would like to hear about the situation in terms of real consequences. Have you had the opportunity to reflect on this? If so, in what way?

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

Thank you very much, and thank you also for your support in the House on this bill.

You mentioned your report, and that's really one of the bases—the report that this committee has done—on which we were putting forward our bill.

Often with EI, it becomes a regional thing—certain regions depend more on it than others. I think that when you look at this bill, you'll see it's for all Canadians. There's no area that has more heart disease or cancer than another area. But that being said, your recognition of volunteers was very important. We've seen a lot at the HRDC offices. We've talked to people who have seen a big problem with the people coming to the office.

Your question was on what effect this would have on private insurance, the companies themselves. I guess what we're finding is there's a substantial number of people who have no insurance, whether you're a tow truck operator or you're working—They don't have any insurance at all. So when these people become eligible for this, it will not have any effect because they don't have the insurance itself.

A lot of private health insurance deals with many things, from dental.... There are a lot of incidentals they already take care of. It's not going to have any effect on that per se. There's no doubt it would supplement and help a bit in their income overall. If they're paying into insurance, this is an extra, I guess.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

We're going to move to Mr. Godin for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you.

I want to start by saying that our friend by the wall had his BlackBerry off and he was just looking at his e-mail, and I'm sorry. It was an MP that had his BlackBerry open.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's okay.

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

I want him to feel good.

I want to congratulate you for the bill.

Hats off to you, because this is a good thing.

The same thing happened to me in my office. I am thinking of whoever makes the best case.

How do you answer a person? I find it tough, because someone gives you a call and says, “Look, I didn't break my legs or my arm and in two months or in 15 weeks I can go back to work. I have cancer, and I'm probably going to die. I am alone, I'm not married, and if I cannot get my EI for more than 15 weeks, that means I'm going to be on welfare at $468 a month.” What do you tell that person? He's a worker who may have worked 15 or 20 years.

And sometimes I hear the government—the previous government or this one—say that people abuse EI and people just want to get on EI.

I'd like to raise a question for the witnesses, especially since we have key witnesses here. Do you think a person who has a stroke will abuse the system if he needs a year or six months to come back? Do you think a person with cancer who needs chemotherapy will abuse the system? Do you think we will be making a good gesture if this Parliament agrees and doesn't ask for a royal recommendation? I'm worried about it, because they talk about money, and they think it belongs to the Queen in England, but it belongs here and it belongs to the worker.

I'd like to have your comments on that.

[Manuel Arango]

First of all, maybe some individuals would take advantage, but I have to assume that the large majority are going to be sincere about the symptoms and the situation they're going through and they would be honest. There's no indication out there that in fact people would intentionally deceive when they're that sick. That's my impression.

[Kenneth Kyle]

Thank you for the question.

I would agree with my colleague from the Heart and Stroke Foundation. I'm not aware of substantial abuses.

I would add that cancer is more a disease of older people, and as our population ages, even though cancer rates are stable, the incidence of new cases of cancer is going to skyrocket. We're going to have a tsunami in about three years. A tsunami of cancer is going to hit this country, and that's why Parliament voted the funds for the Canadian strategy for cancer control to deal with that. The population is getting older, and MPs are going to be faced with more and more of these people coming to their offices.