Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have some reservations with respect to Mr. Chong's comments and I'll tell you why.
With all due respect for immigrants in Toronto, I should point out that we also have people creating jobs in small and medium-size businesses, who are not immigrants. We have people in small businesses who are not paying into the employment insurance regime. If the members of the Conservative Party of Canada, the Canadian Alliance or the Reform Party of Canada had voted in favour of the bill I tabled for self-employed workers, then perhaps those workers would be contributing and would be eligible.
In my opinion, Mr. Chong is contradicting himself. He complains about the amount this could cost, but on the other hand, he says that it does not go far enough and that it will exacerbate discrimination. However, we are discussing a system that the federal government does not invest in. Workers and employers contribute financially and it is their insurance. It is the employees of these employers who get sick. Yet, since 1986, to pay down its debt and achieve a zero deficit, the government has been stealing money from the employment insurance fund that is supposed to pay employees who are on sick leave. That money belongs to employees who get sick and must take extended sick leave, but we're being told that there's no system to help them. And yet, this is insurance that they paid into, not the Government of Canada. There is no discrimination there. The employees and employers contributed to that insurance in order to protect employees in the event of illness.
I do not see where the discrimination lies. If there is any, then I would suggest to Mr. Chong that he table a bill that would allow self-employed workers to contribute to employment insurance, and that would apply to all of the immigrants he has been talking about. We have been asking for a long time now that self-employed workers be able to participate in this program. They should be a part of it.
I agree that self-employed workers should be eligible. Under the employment insurance system, whether an individual who has paid into the fund gets sick in Bathurst, New Brunswick, Caraquet, or Toronto, they have a right to receive employment insurance or sickness benefits. So there is no discrimination between Toronto, Bathurst and Caraquet. There's no connection with the fact that the unemployment rate is 4.5 or 6% in Toronto whereas it is 20% in Acadie-Bathurst. Employees who have paid into the fund and who get sick and qualify, can receive sickness benefits. Everyone is treated equally. In order to be eligible for sickness benefits, one has to have worked a minimum of 600 hours over the year. This applies whether one is in Toronto, Bathurst, Moncton, Halifax, or Nanaimo, British Columbia. There is no discrimination. The program belongs to the employees, and today we are discussing their program. We're saying that rather than granting 15 weeks of benefits...
I don't know whether or not you received the testimony that we heard yesterday. Mr. Preston said that the witnesses had convinced him that something had to be done. But it looks like those who were convinced yesterday are not here today.
There are also those who do not work and are not on an employer's payroll. Let us take, for example, an individual who receives welfare benefits, and learns that he has cancer and must undergo treatment. That individual will continue to receive welfare benefits; he will not lose his income.
A man called me to tell me he had cancer. Do you know what the word “cancer” means for most people? I don't wish it on anybody. It means death. That is what is so scary. The man who called me was experiencing that fear of dying.
In his testimony yesterday, a man said that he had been to see his physician and that he had been told that he had cancer. He would have to undergo chemotherapy treatments, etc. Usually in a case like that one, an individual cannot go back to work for at least a year. Fortunately, today, with treatment, people can go back to work. It takes about a year. Those who cannot go back to work are eligible for Canada Pension Plan benefits for long-term leave. That is what one of the witnesses told us yesterday.
Take someone who is 40 or 50 years old, who has worked their whole life, is told they have cancer and must undergo chemotherapy treatments for one year. After 15 weeks of receiving sickness benefits, an employment insurance officer tells that individual that they will no longer receive any income. That announcement will be harmful to their health and will compromise their recovery. Specialists and individuals who testified here yesterday said that this is counterproductive and that it could compromise any treatments. It is horrible to hear people cry over the phone and tell us that they can no longer feed their family.
Mr. Chairman, take someone who has experienced a heart attack. We know that that can happen to people under stress. Imagine learning after 15 weeks of receiving benefits that you will no longer be receiving any.
Who are we to not support that? If we had cancer, we would be able to stay at home and receive a net salary of at least $7,000 per month. Who are we to say no to these workers? Is there discrimination? Are you willing to give up your pay cheque in order to satisfy everyone in the country, all those workers who do not have a right to benefits, self-employed workers, immigrants who do not pay into it? If you had cancer, would you be willing to give up your net salary of $7,000 per month after a seven-week absence?
Ask yourselves that question and perhaps when you find the answer you'll support the bill.
