Human Resources Committee on Oct. 17th, 2022

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 37 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022, but today, at this session, we'll all be here in the committee room. To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. Click the microphone icon to activate your own mike, which will be controlled by the proceedings and verification officer. I will manage the speaking order.

You may speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available. I would ask members to speak slowly and clearly for the benefit of the translators for the interpretation services. If at any time we lose translation, please get my attention and I will suspend until the situation is corrected.

I would like to remind all participants that taking screenshots or photos is not allowed in the room. Again, should any technical issues arise, please get my attention, and I will suspend while they are clarified.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 15, 2022, the committee will commence its study of Bill C-215, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine).

At this time I would like to welcome the witnesses to begin the discussion with five minutes of opening remarks. We will begin with our colleague Monsieur Gourde, the MP for Lévis—Lotbinière. We also have another witness in the first hour, Louis Sansfaçon, who is appearing as an individual.

Welcome, gentlemen. I will now move to Mr. Gourde to begin his five minutes of opening remarks.

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I also thank all the members of the committee for participating in this very important study.

Today, the HUMA committee will become a committee of hope. I’m talking here about the hope of 151,000 Canadians who, every year, need more than 15 weeks of employment insurance or sickness benefits. I’m introducing a bill with the spirit and intent of increasing benefits from 15 to 52 weeks for those who are eligible and in need because of a serious illness, such as cancer or a prolonged illness. This study is very important, because it could change things in these people’s lives.

I came to personally understand what getting help could mean. In 1993, my wife had cancer. Between the diagnosis, treatments and remission—in other words, before she was healthy again—a year had passed, from January 1993 to the end of December that same year. I can therefore tell you that, for everyone going through tough times, it really changes things. When fighting for our life and health, we need keep up hope and stay on course.

Unfortunately, too many Canadians lose their fight because they have financial problems due to the fact that they can’t work. Once their 15 weeks of employment insurance benefits have run out, they’re out of resources. Far too many Canadians still don’t have the means to obtain private insurance.

I am therefore asking you to reflect as parliamentarians, and not hide behind a royal recommendation. Parliament voted in favour of this bill at second reading. It is important to keep in mind that the decision on this bill, to be taken over the coming days, will directly affect the lives of 151,000 Canadians every year. It will also affect families, spouses, children, parents and friends. We all know someone who has had or will have health problems.

This is a message of hope that the government of Canada can support.

After a year, when people become essentially disabled, they have access to other benefits. However, there is a type of black hole between the fifteenth and fifty-second week of support offered to Canadians. Our duty as parliamentarians is to ensure that they get this help. The Parliament of Canada agrees. Do not hide behind a process. Its intention may be to prevent abuses, but this bill is not an abuse, it is a necessity.

I hope you will reflect on that.

I’ll stop there.

I’ll be ready for your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Sansfaçon.

[Louis Sansfaçon, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Greetings, ladies and gentlemen of the committee.

Thank you for welcoming me here.

I also thank Ms. Chabot, who gave me the opportunity to address you. I am very grateful to her for it.

There’s a great deal of emotion behind the testimony I will attempt to give today, to try and honour the memory of my daughter, Émilie, and, above all, the promise I made to her.

In 2018, Émilie was working as a secretary and bookkeeper for a small construction business. She was diagnosed with stage III colon cancer. Mother of a little three-year-old girl, she came to realize that she would need rounds of chemotherapy, surgeries and radiation treatments in order to survive, and this protocol was certainly going to last several months. Never having faced such a situation, she did not know the amount or length of benefits she was entitled to. In fact, she was entitled to a maximum of 15 weeks of benefits, the same number of weeks since 1971.

With all the wisdom of her 29 years, she thought that by getting directly involved, she could contribute to changing the law. Between 62 rounds of chemotherapy, she came here to Ottawa to raise awareness among decision makers—in other words, you—about the need to improve quality of life for sick workers like her. I supported her throughout the entire process. After nearly three years, on December 17, 2019, she even met personally with Prime Minister Trudeau. Hope was running high.

Bill C-265, whose short title is the Émilie Sansfaçon Act, was tabled by Bloc Quebecois member Ms. Claude DeBellefeuille, who always supported Émilie. It did not receive royal assent. An election was called, and the bill died on the order paper, just like my daughter. It ended the hope for approximately 420,000 workers who pay into employment insurance.

Émilie died on November 5, 2020, without ever seeing an improvement. This simple process, launched by a young citizen who never asked to get sick, faced challenges both medical and financial. Émilie was disappointed. She had lost on both fronts.

On December 15, 2021, Mr. Jacques Gourde, conservative member for Lévis—Lotbinière, tabled Bill C‑215. It’s the latest version of many bills on the matter, and I hope that it will lead to 50 or 52 weeks of benefits. We won’t quibble over two weeks.

A question must be asked: How is it that, election after election, whether they take power or not, certain parliamentarians sometimes vote in favour, sometimes against, a certain bill? In February 2012, Mr. Trudeau voted in favour of Mr. Coderre’s proposal to increase benefits to 52 weeks. This position was a great source of inspiration for Émilie.

Citizens elect their chosen representatives. Every member has the privilege and the duty to participate personally in exercising democracy.

In Quebec, many tens of thousands of people can’t go to work due to illness. Some have been diagnosed with cancer and have to follow a treatment protocol that will go well beyond 15 weeks. According to a report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the majority of sick leave recipients are off work for an average of 41 weeks.

Kelly Masotti, vice-president of advocacy for the Canadian Cancer Society, noted that the average length of treatment for breast cancer or colon cancer was 26 to 37 weeks, not including convalescence.

All of you know that some people, unfortunately, don’t make it. The illness has an impact on a sick person’s daily life, but also on their family, their loved ones and their children. The perverse effect of only 15 weeks of benefits, even 26 weeks, is a slow slide into poverty.

As members or ministers, like me, you won’t have to worry the day after a diagnosis. You are not service sector workers, who aren’t necessarily covered by group insurance or mutual insurance, or who can’t pay for insurance. Personally, I have bone marrow cancer, a bone cancer, and I am covered by insurance.

Those of you who will take part in this decision, tell yourselves that this could happen to a member of your family, a friend, a neighbour, real people. In short, this absurdity is very real. It is insidious and impacts morale almost more than the illness itself. Statistics uphold the law to the detriment of community and solidarity.

It is unjustifiable that in Canada, sick workers have to turn to the funding platforms of this world, like GoFundMe. They have to organize benefit dinners or other activities to pay for their medication or travel to hospital, among other things.

On May 28, 2021, the Hon. Carla Qualtrough announced in the House of Commons that Canadians wanted and deserved a flexible employment insurance system that meets their needs.

I agree with her, but the 26-week period does not meet the needs or the goals to be achieved.

Of course, Mr. Chair, you will not see sick workers participating in a protest, sign in hand, marching the streets. They are too busy taking care of themselves and, above all, surviving financially.

I know full well that we have gone through a pandemic. And now, we are going through inflation. What, then, will these sick workers do in the face of inflation?

The pandemic caused delays for surgeries, but also for making diagnoses and taking charge of patients. Therefore, from the beginning, precious weeks that should have been dedicated to healing and returning to work were wasted. Once again, workers are the ones paying the price.

You all agree that a healthy environment promotes healing. However, the stress of the unknown in the face of an illness, compounded by the financial reality and challenge of having to feed oneself, pay bills and take care of one’s family become a source of mental exhaustion. That certainly does not help people return to work.

Sooner or later, a sick worker, having exhausted their weeks of benefits, will have to sell all they have and drain their savings to become eligible for social programs, under provincial responsibility.

To conclude, I highlight that the Hon. Carla Qualtrough also said that the Employment Insurance Act needs to be modernized. Again, I agree with her, but let’s not do things by halves. If we divide 50 by 2, we’re close to 26.

I will take the liberty of repeating the words of Ms. Marie‑Hélène Dubé, whom I congratulate for her determination and courage. She said that the goal to achieve is allowing workers to take care of themselves with dignity and respect.

One day, you will all have to rise in the House and represent the thousands of people who elected you. In every one of your ridings, workers are going through the same situation as Émilie. As a citizen, I expect every single one of you to vote with your heart and the mantle of responsibility you wear. I ask you to remember your commitment and the privilege you have to change things for those who have no voice.

In Émilie’s memory, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Sansfaçon.

We'll now open the floor to questions, beginning with Madam Kusie for six minutes.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also thank Mr. Sansfaçon for being here today. I offer my condolences for his daughter.

Mr. Gourde, I also thank you for being here today.

Mr. Gourde, why do you think that 52 weeks is not enough?

Why did you decide to introduce Bill C‑215?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

I decided to table this bill because we can see that 15 weeks of benefits is really not enough for a person with cancer or an extended illness.

In the case of Mr. Sansfaçon’s daughter, her treatments lasted nearly a year. Personally, when my wife was sick, it lasted a year. In the case of cancer, serious cancer, treatments are lengthy, and recovery takes a long time. People are unable to work while receiving chemotherapy and radiation treatments.

I saw my wife experience shocks and trembling for hours after her treatments. That’s hard. A lot of help and support is needed. Unfortunately, when a person who is sick also has financial problems, it only makes things worse. Patients truly need every kind of help. It can be money, volunteer assistance or help from friends, parents, brothers and sisters. It encourages them to hang on to life.

That means Canada has work to do, and it is up to us to do it.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you.

I also thank you for moving Bill C‑215; it’s a great contribution.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, getting 52 weeks instead of 15 weeks will cost $8 billion over five years.

Why do you think this is worth it?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

It would be worthwhile for the Parliamentary Budget Officer to testify before the committee and help us break down the numbers.

In his study, the Parliamentary Budget Officer based his calculations on a maximum of 52 weeks for all people who needed help. However, those who need sick leave benefits for more than 15 weeks need an average of 41 weeks. That means it would cost less.

Essentially, for a Canadian, it’s the equivalent of one coffee a month, about $2.30. For an employer, that means about $3.30 a month. It’s impossible to find anything similar with private insurance. In fact, without a doubt, it would cost between 10 and 20 times more to obtain an equivalent amount.

We must consider the fact that nearly 20 million Canadians pay a very affordable rate for major group insurance.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you.

You gave examples highlighting the fact that 15 weeks is not enough. Specifically, you talked about people who had undergone surgery or chemotherapy treatment. In your opinion, benefits should extend over a 52-week period.

Can you give us other examples demonstrating that the benefit period isn’t long enough?

In your view, why does the government think that a 26-week period is long enough?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

It’s hard for me to speak on behalf of the government. However, some members could inspire me through their questions.

It is important to keep in mind that 52 weeks represents the opportunity to recover completely. Offering benefits for 26 weeks will help people for 26 weeks. If someone needs 15 more weeks and doesn’t have savings or family to help them, what are they supposed to do? They’ll get a notice from a bailiff because they won’t have paid their rent. Or they won’t be able to pay the mortgage. If a person is sick or bedridden, that’s not easy to face.

There’s no denying it: benefits are the equivalent of 55% of one’s salary. An individual earning $700-$800 a week, or whose gross income is $1000, will only get $550 a week. They’re already short of money.

Furthermore, a study proved that a person who is ill pays between $20,000 and $25,000 more per year. There are many costs, in fact, including those for medication, travel and hospital parking. That person doesn’t get their entire salary but has to pay more. They don’t have the time or the strength to work. That’s why it is necessary to give them a little help.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Sansfaçon, can you tell us how offering benefits for 52 weeks can help families and individuals who need more time to manage a difficult situation?

[Louis Sansfaçon]

As I said earlier, there are a lot of unknown factors when someone who is sick. There is no end date. In some cases, the person's health improves, but in others it does not. Let us focus on the better scenario, when a person's health improves.

You must also remember that 50 or 52 weeks is a maximum. When a person receives a diagnosis, medical care follows. The person does not receive a prize. They do not go to a Club Med for 50 weeks. That person is fighting for their life.

Personally, I helped my daughter during her illness. I say I helped her, but there were many people behind me: my wife and my daughter's friends. Providing that help has an impact on people's lives, even if loved ones and friends do it out of love.

On a daily basis, transportation and various activities have to be arranged. Everyone wants the person to get better, go back to work and be productive. Everyone needs to feel appreciated at work.

We are talking about cancer and Émilie's death, but in some cases a sick person may require benefits for 34, 40 or 42 weeks. They have to know there is a safety net. Fifty-five per cent of their salary is quite good. Fifty-two weeks is the maximum.

The calculations we discussed might have been based on the notion that everyone will apply for 52 weeks of benefits, but that is not necessarily the case.

I agree with Mr. Gourde that this situation has to be validated in some way.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We have Mr. Kusmierczyk for six minutes.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much, Mr. Sansfaçon, for returning to the HUMA committee, testifying once again, and bringing the story of Émilie to this committee and our work.

As the anniversary of Émilie's passing approaches, I want you to know that we continue to be inspired by her courage and tremendous determination to improve the lives of other Canadians in this country. At the same time, I also want to thank you for your tremendous determination, courage and continued advocacy today. I want you to know that your testimony is important. Your words are important. They matter a great deal to us, and I want you to know they are being heard.

You've been speaking extensively with Canadians about the need to reform the EI program and extend sickness benefits, specifically. I want to ask—in your experience or from stories you've heard from other Canadians in conversations you've had—what stands out for you in some of those stories you've heard. What conclusions would you say you've drawn? What has even surprised you, perhaps, in the extensive conversations you've had with Canadians?

[Louis Sansfaçon]

Thank you for your questions and comments. Thank you also for invoking the sweet memory of my daughter.

From what people have told me about their experience, they are able to heal better when they know that there is hope, that they have a safety net and, above all, that they will not be tormented by financial uncertainty.

People who are sick already have to deal with medical uncertainties. That is enough. Most people I heard on television or on the radio said they nearly went bankrupt, were at the bottom of the barrel, financially speaking. That does not speed up their convalescence.

Although I did not meet that many people—I spoke more than listened, unfortunately—, most of them said that this highlights the duty to respond to this problem the right way. As I said earlier, we must not stop at half measures. We have to keep going.

I hope the party in power can understand this situation. Once again, it is important, because there are real people behind the masks.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I very much appreciate your answer and thank you for it.

You mentioned the unknown—the uncertainty Canadians who are sick and in that position may feel. Often, they experience a stressful gap between the time they exhaust their EI benefits or other supports and the time they are able to return to work. You know that period is extremely stressful, and it impacts their health and families.

Knowing that Émilie also experienced this tremendous stress after exhausting her benefits, can you tell us a bit about how Canadians feel that gap? What impact does it have on their lives?

[Louis Sansfaçon]

In actual fact, people do not start feeling stressed at the 15th week, or even approaching the 15th week; it is long before that. It starts from the time the person meets their doctor and learns that the required treatment could last 40 weeks.

The patient may hope that it does not take that long, but ultimately they receive their benefits for the 12th, 13th and finally the 15th week. As I said earlier, the patient and their loved ones then have to raise money using the GoFundMe platform, for instance, or hold spaghetti dinners and so on.

There is a special ingredient in these efforts. A lot of love goes into these gestures, but that energy should be channelled elsewhere. It should go to helping the sick person, whether that means driving them to the hospital, helping them in their daily routines with the children, in short, just being there.

The 15‑week period is a psychological barrier. Once that period ends, things become dramatic. Émilie was fortunate to have people around her who were a bit more financially secure. Not everyone is in that position, though. As I said earlier, these people are often in the tertiary sector and have low wages. No one expects an illness. They do not have that reflex. They think about building their house, buying a car and making good decisions. When they receive a diagnosis, however, everything changes.

For my part, I had multiple myeloma and had a bone marrow transplant. So Émilie had faith in medicine, but in her case the treatment did not work. And of course the pandemic did not help her situation.

So all of this creates incredible stress. If the financial issues were settled and under control, the situation would be easier. I am not talking about giving out money left and right, but rather spending that money wisely to help sick people. I think workers might be willing to contribute a bit more for that purpose. Perhaps that is the price of the desired peace of mind.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Ms. Chabot, you now have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gourde and Mr. Sansfaçon, thank you for your testimony.

It is always troubling to hear about the reality of individuals with an incurable illness—or curable illness, we hope—who are hampered by our inability to support them in these circumstances.

Mr. Gourde, you said our committee is a committee of hope, and I would like you to elaborate on that.

Your Bill C‑215 is the twelfth bill put forward on this matter since 2009. Of the eleven previous ones, four were introduced by the NDP, six by the Bloc Québécois, and one by the Liberal Party. In that case, Denis Coderre was calling for sick benefits to be extended to 50 weeks.

In the last session, the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C‑265, the “Émilie Sansfaçon bill“ , which was unanimously approved by this committee. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Order Paper when the election was called.

Mr. Gourde, what makes you think this new bill will succeed?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

I called this committee the “committee of hope” because we began considering this bill at the start of a session of Parliament, which allows us to hope that we can reach the end of the normal legislative process.

The order of priority for the introduction of private members' bills is determined by a random draw and, if an MP is slated for the end of the session, they sometimes only have enough time to introduce their bill, without getting very far studying it. Moreover, if an election is called or Parliament is prorogued, everything dies on the Order Paper. That is unfortunately what happened with all the other bills. So the timing of a bill's introduction is very important.

In this case, I was able to introduce my bill in December 2021, right after the election, because I was fortunate to be randomly selected by draw as one of the first 30 MPs to do so. I felt strongly about sponsoring this bill so it would have every possible chance and so the House of Commons could study it before it dies on the Order Paper.

My second reason for calling it the “committee of hope” is that I hope my Liberal colleagues will not hide behind the requirement for royal assent. That would really be very sad. I am asking them to think about it and discuss it in caucus, since they are working on modernizing the Employment Insurance Act. It would be unfortunate if there were very little to show after all this work. We must at least get this amendment to the act passed.

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

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

Mr. Sansfaçon, I commend you for all the work you are doing, especially for people with compromised immune systems, and for carrying on Émilie's fight, someone we had the pleasure of meeting. You are right in saying that her fight was for three things: for her life, for her health and for others.

The government has announced 26 weeks of sick benefits. It should have started in July, but it still has not come into effect. Since the number of weeks of benefits is going to change, isn't it time to do justice to the individuals affected and get past half measures? We have to act now to increase the number of weeks from 15 to 50.

[Louis Sansfaçon]

Of course, I agree with what you are saying. I agree with your impressive desire to move forward and convince MPs.

An MP is someone who represents the members of their riding. There are sick people in their riding. A small percentage of those sick people will need 52 weeks of benefits. We have to bear that in mind.

The 26 weeks announced by the government is like saying the hockey game will end at the second period. Clearly, there will be no winning team, but there will be a lot of losers. We have to commit to finishing the game, to playing all three periods.

I am asking you to commit to thinking about this situation. Tomorrow, you will be meeting sick people from your riding. It will be hard to explain certain decisions to them. You will have the chance to hear from them and listen, but listening is a long way from taking action.

I have been working with Émilie for three years. I support and continue the work of Marie‑Hélène Dubé. A lot of work has been done, but one final step is needed. That final step is not 26 weeks of benefits, but 52 weeks, ideally.

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

Mr. Sansfaçon, the 15‑week benefit period was established in 1971. Fifty years later, nothing has changed.

In 2022, all the scientific studies demonstrate this need, including those by the Quebec division of the Canadian Cancer Society and the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, not to mention other recurring illnesses. Isn't it time to act now to permanently increase benefits to 52 weeks?