Human Resources Committee on June 15th, 2021

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Okay. I certainly understand. I thank you for that.

Ms. Kelndorfer, thank you again for your presentation. I just wanted to run it by you with respect to the 50 weeks. Are there certain categories of workers that would be most impacted by the extension? Is there any particular category of worker you think would benefit more from this?

[Julie Kelndorfer]

It's interesting. The MS Society over the last few years has really looked at the extension piece and has worked with a lot of different organizations, the Canadian Cancer Society being one, and the Canadian Labour Congress and others, employers included, and round tables.

Back in 2015, we worked with the Institute for Research on Public Policy, and it really was a look at the entire span of leave when people are sick. They noted that, at any time, 6% of our working population has illness or a sickness, and we really aren't supported, as a Canadian population of workers, to have the supports to remain attached to the workforce. I think this is a really big issue.

EI is a piece in a suite of benefits and support programs that need to be better coordinated. That was one of the pieces around this report and in other reports that have come along. We have participated with the Conference Board of Canada on a couple of them, particularly regarding MS in the workplace, and for people with episodic disabilities and diseases like cancer. Also, long-haul COVID is an interesting one that is new to our discussions and has a lot of resemblances to the episodic disabilities, such as the wave Chantal was speaking of. I've experienced that, too, with MS, and others have too.

I do think that it is old, and it needs to be updated to address the current realities of our workplace and the situation for Canadians who get an illness.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Kelndorfer.

Thank you, Mr. Long.

Ms. Chabot, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

First, let me send my warm regards to my dear colleague Mrs. DeBellefeuille, who has proudly championed this bill, and to the witnesses who have come to describe the situation for us with so much emotion, and justifiably so. My thanks go to Mr. Sansfaçon, for whom I have so much respect, for his commitment in continuing Émilie's fight, given all she had to go through. My thanks also go to Marie‑Hélène Dubé, Ms. Renaud and Ms. Kelndorfer.

Here is what I want to say to the last question that my Liberal colleague asked, about how 26 weeks could address the situation. We cannot say that extending the period from 15 weeks to 26 weeks would not improve things slightly, of course. However, that leads me to this question.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, if the benefit period was 26 weeks, who would fall between the cracks and why?

After 50 years, 13 bills, and a motion and a bill passed by a majority in the House, what other approach can be taken—because it's the 21st century—so that the Liberal government finally signs on to the idea that 50 weeks is necessary to meet the needs? It's a matter of simple fairness.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Thank you very much for the question, Ms. Chabot.

This afternoon, we have had some good examples of what it would take. You have heard four testimonies from people for whom 15 weeks of benefits were not sufficient. That means, if you will, that we could spend the entire year hearing testimony from people for whom 15 weeks were not sufficient. For most of them, 26 weeks were not sufficient either, because they had illnesses that needed more than 26 weeks away from work.

We are abandoning 150,000 Canadians each year because of our refusal to change the number of weeks. I'm sure you will agree with me that a period of 15 weeks is no longer viable. As for the 26 weeks, people think that it is already the case, but it is not the case at all, as Mr. Sansfaçon rightly said. It will be the case only when the government decides that it is the case. That has not happened yet. An election may well be called and months may well go by before the 26 weeks of benefits come into effect. However, some people are finishing their 15th week of benefits today, as we speak.

We have the privilege and the opportunity to take care of those vulnerable and abandoned workers today by fulfilling a government commitment. It would not amend the Employment Insurance Act every week. The act has not been touched for 40 years. We are proposing one amendment that would address the new needs of workers and modernize special sickness benefits in order to better respond to the workers whom we are neglecting now and whom we will also be neglecting in the years to come.

We do not understand this lack of sensitivity on the part of the government because, basically, the matter is well-documented. When I listen to Mr. Long, I really want to tell him that he knows full well that 26 weeks are not enough for a large number of workers who are sick.

As Mr. Sansfaçon said, we are not asking that all sick workers take all 50 weeks. Instead, those who unfortunately need more than 15 weeks or 26 weeks, can obtain the support they need to get well and to go back to work.

We are in politics and we pass bills on all kinds of subjects that do not fall into people's realities. They do not resonate with the public. Bill C‑265, on special sickness benefits, does resonate. People understand it, and we have reached the point where the Employment Insurance Act must be modified.

Ms. Chabot, I am deeply saddened to see this political resistance, which most Quebecers and Canadians do not understand, because Bill C‑265 makes so much sense and is so well documented.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

Mr. Sansfaçon, when we hear testimony like Émilie's, whom we knew and have met, because we were with her at the meeting with the Prime Minister and Minister Qualtrough, we can say that we have an opportunity before us at the moment.

Do you agree with me that we have an opportunity to act, to propose something that makes sense?

It does make sense, because we are talking about workers who pay employment insurance premiums and have no complementary private insurance plan.

Those are the people for whom we are demanding government action.

What would 50 weeks of benefits have been able to change in Émilie's life?

[Louis Sansfaçon]

In a sense, Émilie was one of those workers just starting out in their careers. She was a simple administrator who did accounting work. She had no social safety net. She believed that, if she lost her job, the employment insurance program would give her up to 40 or 42 weeks to find another one. It would be interesting to conduct a survey or do a vox pop on the issue. I would actually be curious to find out how many people know that they are entitled only to 15 weeks of special sickness benefits, starting on the day they fall ill.

If Émilie have been able to get 50 weeks of benefits, she might have avoided having to overdo things and cause herself physical problems by returning to work before she was able to.

We will never know whether it hurt her. The fact remains that, in my opinion, attitude is important when one is ill. Émilie believed that too. And I was diagnosed with multiple myeloma and bone cancer a few years ago. However, when you have to pay your bills, look after a child, and incur new expenses in medical transportation, it is difficult. All kinds of things are added into the unknown. The only known in that situation is that you just have 15 weeks of benefits.

If someone were able to know that, as of now, they could count on 50 weeks of benefits, I am convinced that it would do them a great deal of good, both mentally and in terms of their attitude to the illness and to the family. It would not cure anything at all, but it would help with the return to work.

As a former employer, I would prefer to see an employee take 26, 28, 30 or 34 weeks of leave and then come back to work in good shape. I would not like to see them come back at the end of the 16th week and pretend to be in shape. It's not possible, it's not productive and it's not good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sansfaçon and Ms. Chabot.

Next is Mr. Blaikie, please, for six minutes.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

I want to start by saying a big thank you to all of our witnesses today for discussing an important issue, to be sure, but also for sharing stories that are deeply personal. I know that it's not always easy to share in a public forum like this, so I thank you for having the courage to do that. I know that many Canadians who aren't here today will benefit from your willingness to share those stories.

Along that vein, Mrs. Renaud, I understand that you may be one of the first people ever with long COVID to be testifying before a parliamentary committee. I know you talked a little bit about being able to avail yourself of a short-term disability plan but not a long-term disability plan.

I know that there are insurance companies that aren't recognizing long COVID to the extent that they should, or in some cases at all, and that, even in the case where some companies are recognizing it, it can be difficult to get a diagnosis, particularly in part because Canada doesn't understand a lot about this condition. The world [Technical difficulty—Editor] respect of many other countries in terms of the work being done on this, but for those who got COVID and then have been subject to long COVID, if they got COVID before the testing regime was in place, a lot of them weren't able to get a positive diagnosis simply because the testing infrastructure didn't exist yet.

I'm wondering if you could speak a little bit to your own experience and the experience of other COVID long-haulers you know who have struggled to gain access to employer insurance plans.

[Chantal Renaud]

For me, yes, like I was saying earlier, I was lucky to have the disability insurance, but there seems to be a problem with long-term disability claims. I certainly am not the only one whose long-term disability claim has been denied by disability insurance companies. In my particular case, and I know it is the case with a lot of other long-haulers, we do a lot of different medical tests, but everything comes back normal. On paper we look like there's nothing wrong with us when, in reality, most of us are completely debilitated and often bedridden or really unable to work.

From the statistics I've seen, only 20% of Canadians have disability insurance, which means that a large majority of the population don't have access to that. Some of those people also get very ill. It's not just COVID long-haulers. It's all of the people who get sick. Especially if they don't have access to disability insurance, they need to be able to rely on more than 15 weeks of financial support. The 15 weeks pass so quickly, especially with the health care system right now. It's so overloaded that I have to wait for months for one medical test. I've already done a few, but I'm still waiting to do more, because there's a backlog there. It's crucial, it's vital that this be addressed and that there be something done about it as soon as possible.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Renaud, for that testimony.

Mrs. Dubé, a month or two ago, this committee studied Bill C‑24, and, as Ms. Dancho said earlier, I tried to introduce an amendment so that the employment insurance program would provide 50 weeks of sickness benefits.

The Liberals insisted that the NDP did not understand the software that processes sickness benefits, that it is really difficult to make changes to it, and, for that reason, they did not support my amendment. They considered that it would make no sense at all to provide a royal recommendation for the amendment.

In Bill C‑30, the government proposes to increase the benefit period from 15 to 26 weeks. It will be a year or two before that measure comes into force. The Liberals were opposed to my amendment because they said it was difficult to make changes to the software. Now they are committing to make a change to the software.

So why do they not extend the period to 50 weeks now instead of extending it to 26 weeks? In the coming years, they will once more be able to make the argument that it takes a lot of effort to change the system that pays the benefits.

[Marie-Hélène Dubé]

That is a good question.

As soon as you make a change, you have to change the system. The issue is not entering 26, 40 or 50 weeks, the issue is making the change. You can't keep putting it off just because there may be a problem. We know that the government has learned a lot from the errors that have occurred in recent years and that it will conduct tests. So it's really important to make the change.

We have also heard a lot of figures, such as 37 weeks and 41 weeks. But those are statistics on the length of treatments. Do you really think that someone whose treatments lasted 43 weeks will be in good enough condition to return to work five days a week as soon as the treatments are over? The answer is no. That time must also be considered, and the statistics do not do so.

During the pandemic, the government recognized that it was capable of [Technical difficulty] quickly in the act. It was good that they did so. They realized that where there's a will, a way can be found. In my opinion, it's not just about a technical problem, it's about having the will.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mrs. Dubé.

Next we'll go to Mrs. Falk, please, for five minutes.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to thank all of our panellists for their contribution to this, and not only that, but for being willing to be raw and real, sharing emotional stories. Thank you all for that.

I have had the pleasure of being on this committee since I was first elected. I have been on this committee with Mr. Long and Mr. Vaughan, and in that time there have been a number of studies and reports done relating to employment insurance. We have heard repeated testimony about the limitations of the EI program [Technical difficulty—Editor], and during the pandemic we experienced the employment insurance program's limits on a larger scale with COVID. We know that because we have heard testimony on that today.

The concern about the 15-week cap on employment insurance sickness benefits has been raised on a number of occasions on this committee, and this committee in the past has recommended its extension in studies like the report on episodic disabilities. It's a very frustrating point for me—being a member of this committee and being an elected official—having reports come from this committee and having the government not act on recommendations the committee has recommended to the government.

We know that when someone is ill, EI sickness benefits should help alleviate the burden and the worry of income security, allowing them to focus on recovery. Knowing that, after their recovery, they will be able to go back to their job is also a concern that many have. If that worry is alleviated, it would also help someone focus on their recovery, which would help them heal more quickly.

In this committee's study on episodic disabilities we had heard repeatedly about the value of continued labour force attachment.

Ms. Kelndorfer, I'd like to thank you for your contributions to that study. I'm just wondering if you would agree that the labour force attachment should be a consideration in the structure of the EI program. If so, do you think that the proposed extension of sickness benefits will help more Canadians remain connected to the workforce?

[Julie Kelndorfer]

Thank you for the question and thank you for highlighting that very important report of this committee around episodic disabilities. It was, I think, 20 years in the making when it came to the HUMA committee.

Many of the conditions and diseases that are considered episodic, including cancer [Technical difficulty—Editor], have all been, I would say, amplified during COVID, so I think the recommendations in that report are needed now more than ever.

I think the labour force attachment consideration is key. People want to work, but they struggle to work. How can we, as a society, ensure that they can remain connected to their workplace for as long as possible? We would be supportive of anything that would support that.

I think that in the discussion around employment insurance, there are lots of other pieces around the sickness benefit. Extension is a piece, but I think there are other pieces, including the increase in the benefit. It's not just the extension, which is very important, but there are other pieces that will be supportive of maintaining that workforce attachment, which will help all Canadians who are able to access it, because there is also an access piece.

If I can make just two more points, I think there is also a piece around women. Women have been disproportionately affected by COVID. They also are disproportionately affected in terms of accessing the EI sickness benefit from the get-go because of their precarious, part-time and different labour force attachment.

The other piece that Mrs. Renaud spoke about—the short-term to long-term disability—has been an ongoing issue for many years for many different diseases. I think that's a piece I would surely like to see change.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Ms. Kelndorfer.

What are some of the benefits that someone would experience who has the opportunity for that labour force attachment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Answer very briefly, please. We're out of time.

[Julie Kelndorfer]

Work provides a number of important considerations. For people with MS, for example, being able to work makes them able to continue with their benefits in terms of their disease-modifying therapies, which actually have been shown in study after study to reduce disability. Of course, reducing disability would benefit all. Thank you.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

That's wonderful. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mrs. Falk and Ms. Kelndorfer.

The last couple of questions will be posed by Mr. Dong, please, for five minutes.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'll be splitting my time with MP Vaughan.

To all the panellists, I want to thank you very much for sharing your stories.

I remember, in 2005, a close family member was diagnosed with third-stage colon cancer. The financial anxiety that came along with that diagnosis was definitely troubling to our entire family. I remember the struggle of looking at the different programs to see what would be there to support [Technical difficulty—Editor]. I fully appreciate the experiences you are sharing with us today.

I see 26 weeks as a step forward, so I want to thank Madam DeBellefeuille for her leadership on this. I am pretty confident that it is going to be the reality.

Mrs. Renaud mentioned the difficulties of accessing long-term disability support. I want to ask all panellists how they see other long-term disability supports, such as the CPP disability benefit, complementing as an extension of the EI sickness benefit.

The question is open to any one of the panellists.

[Julie Kelndorfer]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, I think there are multiple benefit programs that could be better coordinated with EI sickness benefits, from provincial and territorial programs to the program you spoke of, which is the Canada pension plan disability benefit.

One of the things that people with MS have is that, once they're on it, it's very hard to go in and out of the system. A disease like MS is very intermittent. Again, it's that on-and-off piece. Once a person is on a benefit, it's very difficult to move back and forth.

There have been suggestions and ideas around a partial disability benefit. Could that be a medium-term benefit that fills that gap between the EI sickness benefit and the long-term disability piece? I think that would be an idea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Dong, if you want to split your time, you're past the halfway mark, but I'll leave that up to you.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I'll turn it over to MP Vaughan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Vaughan, go ahead, please.