Thank you for the question.
In my case, it would have made all the difference in the world in many ways. I should point out that I am a federal government employee. At the time, I was hired on renewable contracts and I had no benefits. The first time I received 15 weeks. I was seriously ill and it was an emergency situation. They didn't even know if I would survive. I went into a lot of debt.
The second time, I felt that the situation didn't make sense, so I went back to work far too soon. I didn't follow medical advice because I couldn't. So I got sick again very quickly. We can assume that, if I had had the time to take care of myself and my children, to take care of everything, it might have been different.
The third recurrence had serious consequences for me. I had not even worked enough hours to qualify for the 15 weeks of benefits a third time. So I had to delay surgery and work full time until the day before the surgery, when I had been told to rest two months prior to that. I didn't follow that order and suffered serious consequences and all kinds of debt as a result. In my misfortune, I was fortunate enough to own a house, which I had to remortgage heavily on three occasions. Had I not had that, I probably would have had to apply for social assistance until the end of time.
So 50 weeks of benefits could make all the difference. If we think we are saving money by reducing unemployment by a few months, let's also think about all the consequences for many years to come. We would be better off if this small gap were addressed. Actually, we know that illness is part of the life of one out of every two people and two out of every three people in the case of cancer. There are also mental health problems, depression, heart problems. A lot of people are ill, but the illness does not have to be fatal because people are able to take care of themselves. However, the system has not kept up, which is incomprehensible.
So it could have made a big difference for me and for the children. I would have had less stress.