Human Resources Committee on Oct. 17th, 2022

[Louis Sansfaçon]

Yes, it is time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank, you, Ms. Chabot.

Possibly Mr. Sansfaçon can catch that in another question. We're well over.

Madam Zarrillo, you have six minutes.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's nice to see you. Thank you for sharing your story of your daughter, Mr. Sansfaçon.

I guess we talked a lot today about women and how this could disproportionately be affecting women, whether it's single mothers or the fact that there is a wage gap in this country that doesn't allow women to save for things like this. I know, too, that it's actually harder for women to get private insurance because of the rate of breast cancer in this country and that sort of thing.

Last week we were talking about ovarian cancer, which is, again, a fatal disease that involves a lot of intervention and a lot of expenses that come along with illness.

I wanted to ask Mr. Sansfaçon about that idea of public insurance for something that you cannot plan for or think would come, especially at a young age.

Are there demographics that are disproportionately affected by relying so much on having private insurance for anything past those 26 weeks, which we don't even have yet?

[Louis Sansfaçon]

Your question is quite specific and I might not be the best person to answer it. You are talking about groups of individuals who are sicker than others and I am finding it hard to continue on this topic. I remember seeing statistics about this, but I would be afraid of misquoting them.

I can tell you that people in Émilie's age group rarely get cancer and that they usually overcome it. Unfortunately, I cannot give you the actual statistics. I can only tell you about Émilie's case.

Getting back to the idea of insurance against an unknown risk, you are right. Yet we also have to agree that there are steady advances in medicine, which also reduce the person's absence from work, allow them to return and give them hope of recovering thanks to new medications, new approaches and new treatment. I am talking about cancer, the illness I am most familiar with.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Gourde, you spoke a bit about the other areas involved. It affects families and other caregivers who come. It limits the amount of work they can do. That's certainly what we heard from the ovarian cancer advocates. When we think about how many weeks of support a person needs, in your experience or from the folks you've spoken to, how does it affect the household when the income comes away from the family? Do you have any input on how that affects the household in general?

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

There are repercussions for all family members, friends and acquaintances. When someone you know has cancer, that is all you think about. You want to send them positive waves and help them.

In our case, everyone wanted to help: our family, parents, brothers, sisters, neighbours and friends. We must remember though that it is the patient who has to fight the battle. Feeling supported is no doubt of great help. When people volunteer to look after children in the long term, that is very helpful, because the sick person is not always able to look after them. We had three children under the age of two and in diapers when this happened. My mother-in-law and my mother looked after them a lot, which helped us during recovery.

Let me go back to the first question you asked Mr. Sansfaçon. People who cannot get insurance are often those with low wages, earning just $500 per week, for instance. Those people are entitled to just $250 in EI benefits, not even the maximum of nearly $600 per week. I can tell you that those people who cannot likely afford additional insurance do not earn a lot or do not work full time.

In some cases, it all accumulates. There is a big difference between 15 weeks and one year of EI sick benefits. Imagine that you earn just $400 per week and do not get a single cent after 15 weeks. How will you cover your rent and groceries? You are sick and cannot work. Think of single mothers who do not have a lot of support from friends or parents. These things happen in our society, and these individuals are in great need.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you for that.

I have one quick question around mental health. We know that this is a large conversation that's happening in communities right now. Do you see this EI and the 50 to 52 weeks extend also to folks who are working through mental health challenges?

Monsieur Gourde, do you see this extending to that?

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

One of eligibility criteria for EI sick benefits is having a diagnosis from a doctor that you are unable to work. To my mind, regardless of the illness, if you are not able to work, that is simply the reality. If you meet the eligibility criteria for sick benefits, you should receive them.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Zarrillo.

We will now go to Madam Falk for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Jacques, for bringing this bill forward.

I want to thank you as well, Mr. Sansfaçon, for your continued advocacy but also for your willingness to come back to this committee to share your vulnerability and to share your story and your daughter's story.

My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer when I was 11. Her illness went on for 20 years, off and on. I was young, and my siblings were also very young. I think maybe my parents did a good job at hiding the difficulty they were experiencing, such as the financial hardship of going from a household with two parents working to one with one parent working and one sick parent.

Mr. Sansfaçon, I'm just wondering this. If, in your family's experience, there was financial stress, what impact did it have on the mental health of not only your daughter but also those who were helping her?

[Louis Sansfaçon]

Thank you for the question.

In Émilie's case, her financial situation was devastating. We had to make family decisions to help her. Her group of friends held a number of fundraising activities. I am talking about “cents” and not “dollars“. There was enough, but her friends wondered how poor Émilie would make ends meet. She was in the middle of renovations to her house and had all kinds of projects, as is typical of someone aged 28 or 29 who has a baby.

When Émilie passed away, her daughter Jasmine was three. Émilie had been fighting cancer for two years by then. It took up her whole being, and her friends who went to see her understood that. Everyone pitched in, which was great.

Also, having financial assistance does not mean that all the moral support disappears. On the contrary, it takes different forms. That is how I see it.

We talked a bit about mental illness. Those situations and that kind of stress play a role. The person's outlook is very important because it is the first step in success. But if the person's outlook is undermined by financial problems, that makes it difficult.

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

I don't remember who said this, but people do better with hope. I think the government, every elected official at every level of government, should be concerned when we're seeing headlines about people who, for example, can't afford food, can't afford to house themselves, who may not be sick but who are now wanting to end their life by MAID. We need to be cautious and take a moment to think about what we do here and the impacts it has.

Mr. Gourde, just quickly, we heard members from the government say they've heard Mr. Sansfaçon's story and it hasn't fallen on deaf ears. I'm just wondering. In your opinion, why has this government dragged its feet on implementing the 26 weeks, let alone 52 weeks?

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

It is difficult for me to answer on behalf of the government. I really hope someone has the courage to do so.

I would like to find someone who is opposed to this bill and has the guts to appear before the committee. We could easily find 500 witnesses who support the bill. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, the government could withhold royal assent because it is a private member's bill. It was nonetheless introduced by an MP and approved by a majority of MPs. This is bordering on an affront to democracy.

The government could invoke a procedure to prevent the rejection of the bill on the pretext that it was not a government bill. Indeed, the idea of extending EI sick benefits to 52 weeks does not come from the government, because the Liberals did not include it in their election platform, preferring instead to save it for later on and take credit for it. That amounts political partisanship on the backs of sick people.

One should never engage in political partisanship on the backs of sick people. Cuts should never be made on the backs of sick people.

It is our duty as parliamentarians to make choices, the right choices, with taxpayer money. Every day, decisions are made in Ottawa that involve spending more than a billion dollars. In this case, we need about a billion dollars per year, which would be paid by Canadians.

It is up to us to decide whether to agree to the 52 weeks, and I hope that we, on the committee of hope, make the right decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We will now go to Mr. Long for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon, colleagues, and thank you to our presenters this afternoon.

Mr. Sansfaçon, thanks for coming back. I'm so, so sorry about the tragic loss of Émilie.

Mr. Gourde, thanks for bringing this forward. I appreciate your passion. Certainly in the House I always look forward to seeing you speak.

For the record, I want to state that I'm really happy that I can see all parties around this table advocating for increased EI benefits. That is really very refreshing to see. We will be implementing the 26 weeks by the end of this year, which will help about 120,000 additional Canadians.

All of us around this horseshoe have stories from our constituency offices about the calls we get. I talked to my team this afternoon. Jeannette Arsenault is the person who handles most of my constituency work. I asked her to share with me some of the calls she gets and some of the responses she has to give. Some of these Canadians work all their lives; they get sick, and they receive 15 weeks of EI. We've had some people basically be told that, well, you're going to have to go on social assistance. That is horrifying. We've had some people refuse treatments because they couldn't afford to go on EI sick leave. We're also entering an era of long COVID, when more and more Canadians are going to need more than 15 weeks.

In your opinion, Mr. Gourde, in general, what are some of the greatest challenges employees face regarding access to EI sickness benefits?

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

When a person is sick and receives a medical diagnosis meaning that they cannot work, the person becomes eligible for EI sick benefits. That is not the problem.

The problem is that, among the 400,000 Canadians who claim EI sick benefits every year, about 151,000 of them need more than 15 weeks of benefits. By extending the benefit period to 26 weeks, we will be helping 120,000 of those 151,000 people. Yet that will still leave 31,000 Canadians per year for whom that is not enough.

If we receive royal assent and the bill is passed, with 26 weeks, that might help another 31,000 Canadians, without costing very much.

I would like the Parliamentary Budget Officer to examine the cost difference between the planned 26 weeks and the average of 41 weeks needed. For the 31,000 Canadians who are really badly off, the average amount of benefits would not be about $600 per week, but about $300 to $350 per week. Is it really worthwhile to penalize 31,000 Canadians by stubbornly debating 26 weeks versus 52 weeks?

This is an important matter now because measures have been proposed to modernize the EI program and the insurance companies are ready. It took 50 years to open the discussion, move forward and grant more than 15 weeks of benefits. The current proposal is 26 weeks, we need 52, but for the vast majority of the population, the average number of weeks needed is 41.

By limiting it to 26 weeks, we will be penalizing about 31,000 Canadians every year. Some of those Canadians are in each of our ridings. Not a week goes by without someone calling to say they are out of money. We must really resolve this matter and settle it for the next 50 years. I am asking you to think about it and talk to your caucus about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That concludes your time, Mr. Long.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to point out that we are talking about workers and employers who pay into employment insurance. Workers who lose their employment income owing to illness are rightfully seeking access to the same number of weeks of EI sick benefits as the regular EI benefits. It is a question of fairness, I believe, and those 52 weeks would be fair.

Moreover, you have to remember that a person must have worked 600 hours to be eligible for EI benefits. So from the outset, not everyone is eligible.

In closing, Mr. Sansfaçon, could you tell us why you think 26 weeks are not enough and why we need 52 weeks?

[Louis Sansfaçon]

In cases similar to Émilie's—that is, in cases of serious illness for which chemotherapy gives hope for recovery, but where the protocol calls for 40 weeks of treatment—the attitude toward the disease and the fight is going to be less positive.

The financial challenge takes precedence over the medical challenge, and hope is lost. Those who are 26, 27, 28 or 30 weeks into treatment are probably the sickest, but they are also the ones who want to have hope of returning to work. While it would have been better if they had more time off, you don't hear about the people who were on benefits for only 15 weeks, but recovered after 17 weeks.

No one raises their hand to say they wish they were sick. It just doesn't happen. One day, you get the bad news, but you want to go back to work and achieve your potential. If these people get back to work soon, it's better psychologically and financially. They will be able to re-enroll their children in certain activities, which the family may have chosen to cut. That's part of the person's daily life.

Everyone has been given the information and understands the situation: the key to success is to allow up to 52 weeks of benefits, based on a health assessment. I don't think Canadian doctors are conspiring to defraud. They are going to do their job and support their patients by helping them heal and return to work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot and Mr. Sansfaçon.

Madam Zarrillo, you have two and a half minutes to conclude the first panel.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gourde, this question is just for you in relation to.... I'm going to go back to the gender question again. We know that if a parent takes maternity leave and ends up in a situation where they might get sick and do not have their accumulated weeks.... Do you agree or have any thoughts around some additional changes that should level the playing field in the way of gender equity for EI benefits? Do you support the idea that those maternity weeks should also be considered weeks worked for accumulated hours needed for the benefit?

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

Over the recent months, the committee has done a tremendous amount of work to modernize the employment insurance program. I hope the committee members have mentioned that in the report they are going to present.

I think the ball will be in the government's court. When they come out with their modernized program, hopefully everyone will have some nice surprises.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you very much.

Finally, you mentioned today, Mr. Sansfaçon, regarding your daughter and also you, some of the financial challenges that may come forward when this happens. I wonder if you could just share a little about how it affected the way you thought about other families who might be going through exactly the same thing. Perhaps you could share a bit about your journey in wanting to come and make these testimonies and about what drove you to want to make these testimonies.

[Louis Sansfaçon]

Coming here to Ottawa is like a pilgrimage for me. Émilie came here during her chemotherapy treatments. She had the courage to do it because she thought she could be helpful.

For my part, I promised her I would do everything I could. I am proving it today. It seems to me that I will have succeeded in the best way possible if I am not forced to come back here to explain again that sickness benefits should be available, not for 26, 33 or 35.5 weeks, but up to a maximum of 52 weeks.

I want to say that it is a privilege for me to be here and I thank you.