Debates of Nov. 24th, 2006

The Québécois

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that the member hesitated during his response when he started to say Quebec and then immediately corrected himself to say Quebeckers or the Québécois. Canadians probably are interested to know why there is a difference if the resolution were to say Quebec as opposed to Quebecker or the Québécois.

The member commented about the actions of the Prime Minister, and while the federalist members within the House unanimously will support the motion, it is interesting from my perspective to look at the dynamics of how this unfolded. It appeared to have its genesis quite a long time ago. More recently, I would think that there were discussions by Quebec Liberal Party members with regard to a resolution to start dealing with the issue of recognizing, or in their case, I think they used the word “officialize” the recognition of the special nature of Quebeckers.

Following that there has been about a month long discussion on the question and then this motion was proposed by the Bloc, and so now we have another vote. It appeared to be somewhat of an effort to be a little mischievous with regard to the discussions going on during the Liberal leadership convention campaign which is going on right now. Once that came in, almost immediately the Prime Minister reacted to ensure that the additional phrase “within a united Canada” was added because of the concern that there was a opening that would be interpreted in the wrong way.

There has been some progression. I can assure the member that should the matter have not been dealt with by the Prime Minister, who has the principal responsibility of taking the lead on matters of representing the country on behalf of all Canadians, that certainly the Liberal Party would have made the same motion. That is why we are so delighted that it is before us and that we can have this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could seek the unanimous consent of the House to extend this question section for about four minutes, given that it would be difficult for someone to rise and begin a speech but have to finish it at a later time.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent for a four minute extension?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

There is no consent.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, does the member believe that Canadians are aware of the sensitivities of the words using Quebec versus Quebecker or Québécois and the reason why it was important to put that last phrase into the motion with regard to a united Canada?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. In my remarks earlier on, I wanted to read the motion as written, which mentions the Québécois. I think that is what matters here.

The member for Brant raised this point for good reason. I think it is the people, not the territory, who form a nation. Regardless of where Quebeckers find themselves in this country, they belong to the Quebec nation. That is how I understand the motion and that is also why, in my remarks just now, I chose my words with great care so as not to distort the motion, but to talk about it as it is written.

As for my colleague's other comments, there was some build-up to this. That question was raised this week and is being raised again.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is late and perhaps it is time for us to get ready to head back to our ridings for the weekend. In that spirit, I think if you were to seek it you may find unanimous consent to see the clock as being 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 1:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine), be now read the second time and referred to a committee.

Employment Insurance Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak on this bill to amend the Employment Insurance Act with respect to benefits for illness, injury or quarantine. The bill was put before this House by the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria under private members' business.

In summary, this bill extends the period for which benefits for illness, injury or quarantine may be paid from 15 weeks to 50 weeks. I want to commend the member for his bill, which humanizes the EI program and takes into account the needs of those whose illness lasts longer than the prescribed period of 15 weeks.

I cannot help, however, but express surprise, surprise and joy, over the fact that such a bill was introduced by the member for Sydney—Victoria, when it is a well-known fact that, in May of 2005, at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Liberals, who were in government at the time, opposed a motion of that committee which was relatively similar to what the member is proposing today.

The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria was asked to explain this about face. I must admit that I find the hon. member's explanation for this somewhat amusing. Truly, his words should be quoted. However I also find his comments reassuring. It goes to show there is always hope. It is always possible, when faced with an obvious injustice, that reason and common sense will prevail.

Let us come back to the comments by the hon. member who said the following in response to his about face and that of the Liberals, “The reality is that our society is changing. At one time people who got cancer died. Now they get cancer and they come back to society and they are also working.”

Between the position of the Liberals forming the government in May 2005 and their position today, in November 2006, in the span of a year and a half, I would say that the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria, once in opposition, opened his heart and mind to understand the situation of workers in difficult situations following a prolonged illness, despite their desire to go back to work.

To the Bloc Québécois it is clear. Our party always strived to propose improvements to the employment insurance program and changes we deem necessary. We have always been in favour of substantial improvements to the employment insurance program.

In fact, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle, from the Bloc Québécois, introduced, in May 2006, Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system). This bill received support from the House in October to be referred for consideration by the standing committee.

We are confident that all the opposition parties will support Bill C-269 and we strongly encourage the Conservative minority government to support it as well.

The Bloc Québécois also introduced, in October, Bill C-344, sponsored by my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, entitled An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting).

Previously there was Bill C-280 from the hon. member for Manicouagan, on creating an independent employment insurance fund. It was passed at second reading on April 13, 2005. Unfortunately, there was no vote at third reading.

In November 2004, my colleague, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, introduced her Bill C-278, a bill that proposed amendments to the employment insurance program.

Thus the House has paid particular attention to employment insurance in the last year is thanks in part to the efforts of the Bloc Québécois.

With regard to the bill before us, without getting into the actuarial and statistical details, it must be understood that it would help first and foremost workers suffering from the most serious illnesses, the oldest workers and mostly women.

I wonder how can anyone be opposed to that. I am convinced though that the Conservatives will find a way. Claims for sickness benefits have decreased among young people aged 15 to 24 and among workers aged 25 to 44 while they have increased among workers aged 45 to 54 and among older workers aged 55 and over.

Also, during the reference period, claims for sickness benefits decreased among men and increased among women. Even though the proportion of women who filed claims for sickness benefits remained relatively stable in 2004-05, women continued to file the majority of claims for this type of benefits, with 59%.

The last monitoring and assessment report of the Canada Employment Insurance Commission stated, and I quote:

About 32% of sickness beneficiaries in 2004/05 used the entire 15 weeks of benefits to which they were entitled. This proportion has been relatively stable in recent years, suggesting that for some types of claimants or illnesses, 15 weeks of EI benefits may not be sufficient.

I may have already mentioned that I was trained as a social worker. During my professional career, I often had to deal with workers who had left their job, because they were sick. Take cancer, a disease that is really wreaking havoc these days. One Canadian in three may be struck by cancer. A person who undergoes chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatments over a number of long weeks goes through a painful experience that leaves him exhausted for a period longer than the 15 weeks covered by employment insurance.

In other words, the 15 weeks currently provided under the employment insurance program are not enough to ensure a full recovery for the person who gets these treatments and who manages to get cured. We often talk about these people, but we should not forget that caregivers—and the bill may be silent on this—who support cancer patients, because they are spouses, children or family members, also get exhausted in the process. Unfortunately, these caregivers must, at the end of the process, leave their job, for reasons of sickness and exhaustion, because they supported that relative or friend throughout his battle with cancer.

I am asking our governments to also reflect on the situation of caregivers who, in my opinion, are not getting much support from them.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois intends to support this bill, which reminds us of the importance of reforming the employment insurance program. I wish to point out that Bill C-269, sponsored by the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle, is more complete than that of the Liberals, which still does not propose an in-depth reform of a program that is ill-suited and unavailable to over 50% of those who should be covered by it.

This is why we hope that parliamentarians in this House will support real improvements, such as those presented in Bill C-269.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak about Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine), and to continue the debate on this bill.

This bill will allow people who claim sickness benefits under the employment insurance program to receive benefits for a maximum of 50 weeks instead of 15 weeks, as the program currently provides.

I say that the bill will “allow” claimants to receive benefits, because they will not necessarily use the full 50 weeks, but will have access to benefits for a longer period.

The 2005 report on employment insurance by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development indicates that roughly 32% of sickness benefits claimants in 2004-05 received benefits for 15 weeks. According to a survey, 75% of the 500 respondents stated that this period was not long enough. In addition, 76% of the respondents said they had missed more than 15 weeks of work.

Clearly, there is a real need to amend the Employment Insurance Act. But let us turn our attention back to the bill.

This bill is for the men and women, the workers who have been diagnosed with cancer or a serious illness, illnesses that may require medical treatment that lasts longer than the 15 weeks provided for in the Employment Insurance Act. We also have to consider recovery time, which is just as important and necessary to successful treatment.

Imagine being diagnosed with cancer and having to undergo treatment to beat the cancer and increase your chances of survival. Imagine having to choose between getting better and going to work. The last thing anyone would want to worry about is money and keeping a job. Regaining health becomes the only goal. Fighting the disease is the priority.

Those are the people for whom this bill was drafted and introduced in this House.

Why should a family worry about its finances when the mother is seriously ill? It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do would be to try to ease the family's suffering. This bill gives us the power to do that.

This bill is intended for future mothers and pregnant women whose health, or whose baby's health, is at risk and therefore must stop all activity during their pregnancy. At present, these women who use all their sick leave in such situations are left with a shorter maternity leave and forced to return to work earlier than planned.

When the Liberal government extended maternity leave to one year, it was absolutely convinced of the importance of this year of leave. We of the NDP are just as convinced. For the best possible development, a newborn baby needs to form a strong emotional bond with his or her mother. This bond is formed over time and with the mother's presence.

What could be more painful for a mother than to have to return to work after only a few months spent with her newborn? This bill will allow these women to stay at home longer and take advantage of their full maternity leave with their baby. This is good news to the NDP.

This bill is also intended for workers who burn out at work. Burnout affects a vast majority of Canadians. Rest and reducing stress levels are two important remedies. People who must return to work after just 15 weeks of sick leave do not have the opportunity to recuperate and get back on their feet. Burnout symptoms often re-emerge, and the changes of getting over them are slim.

In 2005, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities tabled the report Restoring Financial Governance and Accessibility in the Employment Insurance Program. This report contained 28 recommendations, including Recommendation 27 which reads:

The Committee recommends that the government study the possibility of extending sickness benefits by 35 weeks for those who suffer from a prolonged and serious illness.

The Liberal government at the time did not consider this recommendation and never took the necessary steps to implement it. As for the Conservative members, they did not support the report but they did support this recommendation.

The NDP is pleased to note that the Liberal Party has changed its mind and is tabling a bill on this matter in this House. I can only hope that the Conservative government will support this bill given that it supported this recommendation when the report was studied.

Today we are talking about health—the physical and mental health of Canadians. What is more precious than health? As parliamentarians we must adopt the best measures to ensure the quality of life of our citizens.

The NDP supports this bill and will vote in favour of Bill C-278 to enhance the dignity of the people, the well-being of citizens, to provide relief to families and to support the sick in their struggle.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak today in support of Bill C-278, and to thank my colleague from Sydney—Victoria for drafting and introducing the bill.

In summary, it calls for the extension of EI benefits to those who are suffering from a prolonged illness, injury or quarantine, from 15 weeks currently, to 50 weeks. This is also consistent with the 2005 subcommittee report on EI reform that made 28 recommendations, supported by the Conservatives, and, of course, this was one of them.

It is a question of compassion and of of common sense. It would provide an innovative and cost effective solution to a problem that many of my constituents have faced, continue to face and will face again and again if we do not provide the much needed help.

Many people in my riding of Labrador have no supplemental private health coverage to assist during a catastrophic illness and to help assist them and their families through the illness. This is especially the case for seasonal workers and those in the fishery, and many throughout Labrador.

With or without such coverage, treatment for catastrophic and long term illnesses, such as cancer, which is never easy under the best of circumstances, is even more difficult for people in rural, northern and remote areas of our country, and Labrador is one of those places.

The health care infrastructure and expertise simply does not exist in many areas of Labrador. This means that people must travel or even relocate to a larger centre just to get the treatment they need, treatment that people in other areas of Canada take for granted.

It was very depressing to hear, in a report from the Rural Physicians of Canada, that people in rural areas have a shorter life expectancy than those in urban centres.

I would like to talk for a minute about some of the hardships that people in my riding face. I was particularly struck and saddened by an e-mail I received from a lady in the small community of Cartwright. She writes that she spends nearly 60% of her time raising money to help people travel for long term illness and care. She goes from door to door asking for money. She holds raffles and raises money through ticket sales. She does all of types of things just to help people who are in long term care to receive the basics.

Our society should not be that way. When it comes to our health and what is important for us and our families, medical care is one of those things that we should not need to debate but we do, which is why I want to thank the member again for introducing this bill. It is something we not only want but it is something we need.

Despite the economic conditions in the local area of Cartwright, which I just talked about, people do give and they give generously. They give what they can as often as they can but the problem is only getting worse, especially as the population ages.

I will talk about another example. A friend of mine, who lives in the little community of Williams Harbour, where I am originally from, on the south coast of Labrador, had a very serious illness in January of this past year and only got out of the hospital in June. This not only affected him but it also affected his wife who had to travel thousands of miles with him so he could receive the care he required.

After 15 weeks, neither of them can receive EI. He cannot get a note from his doctor to go back to work as he is still recovering. This particular person and his wife have been left without any income whatsoever. Basically, they will need to resort to social assistance. Social assistance is not where they want to go.

The EI fund, with all of the dollars that exist in it, can provide much needed help for individuals like those in Williams Harbour and throughout other communities in Labrador. This bill would go a long way toward helping people who find themselves in this circumstance.

In fact, HRSD's own internal research has shown that the existing 15 week illness and injury benefit is likely not enough. One-third of all recipients use up the entire period before their treatment or recuperation is complete. Cancer treatment, of course, is the classic example, but there are other illnesses and injuries that can require long periods of treatment, therapy or recuperation for many weeks or even months.

This bill is aimed at meeting the needs of people in this situation and treating them with compassion. It will also help relieve the terrible financial burden on families and communities when a family member, neighbour or friend is faced with illness or injury. It will help those who do not otherwise have access to another government income support program or to private insurance benefits.

This bill will provide a safety net to people who find themselves in need under the worst possible circumstances. It will prevent many people from falling through the cracks. It will strengthen families and communities.

That last statement is a slogan often touted by the Conservative government. Now I would like to see the Conservatives put some action behind their words and vote for this bill. Yet, if this bill goes through, it would do so at a minimal cost, because even with an extension of illness or injury benefits from 15 to 50 weeks, the cost will be only .02% of the existing EI surplus.

I think that we as Canadians can afford that compassion. Labradorians need it and deserve it. The government can afford it. The government should vote for the bill as well.

For all these reasons, I am pleased to pledge my support for Bill C-278. I again thank and congratulate my colleague from Cape Breton for advancing this important cause through this legislation.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to take part in private members' business in the House. It is usually about something that tugs at the heartstrings and is near and dear to the people putting the bill forward.

Of course they look for all party support to try to put through their piece of legislation, but unfortunately over the history of this House, although I cannot remember the percentage off the top of my head, the number of bills that actually get royal assent and move on to become part of the social fabric of this country is minuscule. I am very concerned that a bill like this will actually face that same fate.

Having said that, that is as kind as I can be to this bill. The member for Sydney—Victoria sat on the government side for almost 10 years. His government was in power for 13 years and did nothing to address this type of situation, absolutely nothing. Somewhere on the way to the ballot box, I guess, those members had an epiphany and decided that maybe they should do some different things with the EI fund as opposed to the political posturing and partisanship that they displayed on that fund over the years.

The biggest example of that is what the former prime minister did as finance minister. The Liberals talk about the EI surplus being there and that somehow this bill means only .02% of that surplus, but there is no surplus, because the former finance minister scooped $42 billion. He took it and played with it to juggle his numbers to make his books look balanced. There is no surplus.

As for any moneys like this that are dedicated to a fund like EI, it is basically a tax on jobs. Everybody agrees on that. The higher the EI premiums, the more that affects the job situation across Canada. We have a very volatile job market at this point. My part of the country is very fortunate in that anybody who wants a job can have one.

The Saskatchewan government is always complaining bitterly about Alberta not having a proper minimum wage standard. Saskatchewan has just raised its minimum wage to $7.25 now, I think, and from my latest perusal of Alberta the minimum wage is $14 an hour. That is the starting wage at the counter at Tim Hortons. Things are going very well.

Again, the EI premiums are rolling in because of those increased paycheques for folks, but my biggest concern in regard to a bill such as this is the unintended consequence of who actually pays into that fund and how much extra it is going to cost to cover off this type of thing.

As a self-employed person in my former life, I paid the maximum into EI three times in a year, and I always got it back as an employee of my own companies, but I never got back the company portion, the 1.4%, so I was subsidizing someone else.

I certainly would not ever buy into this type of a grandiose scheme, in that it is not necessarily required in this way. I am sure I am supporting this bill to the same degree that the members opposite who are heckling did when they were on the government side. In fact, I have seen them do it, and we can certainly go back to Hansard and pull that up for them. What hypocrisy.

Statistics prove this. I heard the member for British Columbia Southern Interior talk about some statistics he had, but Statistics Canada itself says that nine and one-half weeks was the maximum claimed for medical reasons by 70% of the claimants, if I have those numbers correct. Certainly there are people who fall through the cracks. I get the same calls and they do tug at your heartstrings, but there are other venues.

The biggest concern I have when the members opposite talk about cancer patients, and I grieve for them, because I have had cancer patients in my own family, is that it speaks to the perverted view that the former federal government had about what was called the Canada Health Act. There were five pillars in the Health Act and the only one the government ever got mired in and was concerned about was the public administration, which is who gets to hand out the money and take credit for it.

If we are really concerned about cancer patients and other patients who face the untimeliness of treatment, we have to go to one of the other pillars of the Health Act: the portability. The member who spoke before me talked about somebody having to go 1,000 miles to get treatment. That is supposed to be covered under portability in the Canada Health Act. People go where medical treatment is available. It is accessibility: if people cannot get treatment in their own province, they go where they need to, and the provincial government picks up the tab. That is how this is supposed to work.

It is about comprehensiveness. If some of these new leading edge treatments are not available other than thousands of miles away, patients are allowed, under the Canada Health Act, to go there. Then there is the timeliness, of course, with people talking about waiting weeks before treatment begins. I sympathize. I know that this is what is happening out there.

It is because of the political games and gamesmanship by that same former government that created problems that we are now trying to address by twisting other government programs to cover off the mistakes of the past. We must get back to fundamentals and address the Canada Health Act in that way.

There are credits under Revenue Canada, CCRA, for travel associated with seeking health care. They are there. It is unfortunate that one has to spend the money to get the money back and it comes off the taxes and so on. Certainly, there are people who fall through the cracks. However, this is not the way to address it.

It is important that we discuss these types of things, but we have to realize that EI was always based and founded on the idea that it is a temporary measure. We do have extensions of the EI situation, for example, the child bearing 50 week maternity benefits and so on that last up to a year. The member from B.C. southern interior was somehow alluding to the fact that this would be added on top of that, in the way I interpreted his comments, and I do not see that happening.

There still is not the take up on the actual extra months going to a year that often at this point. The vast majority of people tend to want to get back to work as quickly as they can. It is fortunate for some and unfortunate for others, but this is not an add on to those maternity benefits.

There are certainly many more longer term illnesses out there and that is unfortunate in this country, but there are things that are done like monitoring assessment report notes. I mentioned this earlier. The 70% of the total number of claimants, or about 200,000 people a year, do not use the full 15 weeks. There are some who do and some who do not, but stretching it to 50 weeks is three times more than what most people do not make use of now. We must look at the cost of what it would do to society. It would fall to workers and employers who pay 1.4 or 1.5 times to cover this off. The problem is that this would be a killer of jobs. Short term, we might have a little bit of gain. Long term, it is going to start to backlash and fall back on us.

The Canadian Breast Cancer Network referenced a Canada Employment Insurance Commission report which clearly stated:

The analysis indicates that, on average, claimants collected 9.6 weeks or 64% of the maximum entitlement. In addition, one-third of sickness beneficiaries collected the maximum 15 weeks of benefits. Overall, these results indicate that the 15 weeks of sickness benefits provided by the EI program is meeting the needs of most claimants.

As I said before, there are always those who slip through the cracks, but the system seems to be working fairly well. It would be a perversion of that system to multiply it by three when 70% are only using two-thirds of what is out there already.

The administration of EI itself would also be greatly affected by such a change. At the present time EI sickness benefits are simply and quickly processed, that could be argued, based on medical certificates. That is for a 15 week period. Things change after the 15 weeks. How many times would people have to go back to the doctor to keep qualifying for the full 50? We already have an overloaded, overworked health system. When we start sending people back through the system multiple times to maintain that 50 weeks, I think those again would be unintended consequences.

If the duration and cost of these benefits were increased, the relatively quick response now available might suffer. I think that is true. We tend to bog down in administration in this business.

I find it hypocritical that the members opposite would bring this forward and speak out of both sides of their mouths as though the last 10 to 13 years never happened. My heart goes out to people caught, but for the vast majority this works for them. I could never support this type of perversion of the situation as I see here.

There is always the fallback on to CPP once EI funds run out. Certainly, it takes time to make that jump, but if people are proactive and get their paper work in and so on, it does pay back retroactively up to nine months if it is needed. Therefore, there are other avenues out there without totally destroying and again going after the EI fund that unfortunately does not have the substance to it that it once did because of what the previous government did when it scooped it.

In conclusion, when we look at the factors to be considered, much as we are sympathetic to those forced to be absent from work because of illness, we must ensure that the approach we follow is rational and evidence based, not just politically expedient.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells and welcome the opportunity to join in today's debate on Bill C-278, which proposes to extend EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks.

While it would be premature to give Bill C-278 a blanket endorsement at this time, I join with the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria in acknowledging the need to examine the adequacy of the current provisions surrounding EI sickness benefits.

However, before proceeding with an examination restricted solely to EI sickness benefits, I believe it is important to frame this discussion in the larger context of the overall EI program.

The EI program helps to strengthen Canada's economic performance and protects our social foundations. It is one of several tools used by the Government of Canada to support a productive, efficient and mobile labour force.

Each year, through EI, the Government of Canada provides temporary financial assistance to unemployed Canadians while they look for work or upgrade their skills. Under the program, Canadians may obtain help through employment assistance services and access to programs they need for skills training. In 2003-04 alone EI income support provided $13.2 billion in benefits and helped 1.97 million unemployed Canadians to regain employment.

Canadians also look to the EI program to provide support at times of major transition in their lives. EI helps Canadians to bridge the gap when they are moving from one job to another, or when they are making the transition from skills upgrading back to the working world.

The EI program also provides temporary financial assistance for Canadians who are pregnant or caring for a newborn or adopted child. It also assists those who need to care for a family member or loved one who is gravely ill and provides support for those who have their own short term illness that keeps them away from their job.

As for the performance of the EI program, the most recent employment insurance monitoring and assessment report shows that EI continues to serve Canadians in an effective manner. Evidence shows that access to the EI program has remained stable. Regular EI claims decreased by 6.7%, while regular benefits decreased by 6.3%. This was consistent with the economic growth experienced over the period. Also, the number of sickness benefits remained fairly stable at just over 294,000 new claims, an increase of only 0.1% over the previous year.

When we talk about sickness benefits, as mentioned earlier, the EI program currently provides for a 15 week sickness benefit. This is designed to provide temporary income replacement for individuals who are absent from their job due to short term illness, injury or quarantine. I add emphasis on the words “temporary” or “short term” in the preceding statement.

It is important to underline that the current 15 week duration of sickness benefits was determined following extensive research and analysis. Factors considered in setting the 15 week number included an examination of the availability of sickness benefits in Canada's private sector, comparisons to the time allotted in other countries and discussions with representatives of the medical profession.

Taking all of this into consideration, the design of Canada's EI sickness benefit, while not sufficient to cover every situation, does cover the majority.

An objective evaluation of the existing data would strongly support such an assertion. For instance, the previously referenced monitoring and assessment report noted that the average length of time for sickness benefits in 2004-05 remained stable at 9.5 weeks. Likewise, a recent Statistics Canada study reported that the average work absence owing to illness or disability remained constant at 10 weeks for the past 13 years.

When reviewed in this context, one would be hard pressed to objectively argue that the 15 week provision for EI sickness benefit is not meeting the program's objective for providing temporary income support to workers when they are ill. In addition, it is interesting to note that the party of the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria held a similar view in government not long ago.

The former Liberal government, responding to a report from a parliamentary committee in May 2005, declared that:

--for the majority of workers who turn to EI when they are unable to work due to illness or injury, 15 weeks is meeting the objective of providing temporary income support.

What is more, the former Liberal government's response also indicated:

In the event a worker's illness or injury extends beyond that period of time, long-term income protection may be available through the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and other employment related benefits, if applicable.

Indeed, some situations may be covered by other programs or supports that are available. For example, CPP offers coverage for long term disability and many employers provide their employees with insurance coverage purchased from the private sector.

Though it is not chiselled in stone, nevertheless, EI is not a program impervious to change. It evolves in response to changes in our economy, labour markets and the needs of workers. In fact, recently a number of changes have been made to make the EI program more responsive.

For example, Canada's new government announced in June this year an extended EI benefit pilot project. It provides access to five additional weeks of benefit to EI claimants in high unemployment regions, up to a maximum of 45 weeks. In addition, we expanded the eligibility criteria for the compassionate care benefit so a broader range of EI eligible workers could claim the benefit while they cared for a family member or a loved one.

The performance of the EI program is carefully assessed on an ongoing basis with a view to determining if additional changes are warranted. I stress the words “carefully assessed”. As commendable as it would seem, a change to the EI program on the magnitude as proposed in Bill C-278 cannot be given a blanket endorsement without a clearly defined rationale and without further examination.

There are questions that remain unanswered. What, for example, would be the approximate cost or other impacts of such a change? What would be the advice of the medical profession? What is now the practice in Canada's private sector? What has been the experience in other countries that include sickness benefits in their employment insurance systems? All these considerations deserve a thorough examination prior to moving forward.

Plainly much more information is needed to understand the consequences and costs of increasing the duration of the EI sickness benefit.

While it can be acknowledged that the current 15 weeks provision may not be sufficient in selected cases, we must also recognize that blanket support for Bill C-278 at the present, without the required data to make an informed decision, would be premature. However, this does not preclude further examination on the implications of extending EI sickness benefits, ideally within and outside the confines of Bill C-278.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria, the sponsor of Bill C-278, I would like to give fair warning to members that once he speaks, no one else can speak on this issue.

The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria for a five minute right of reply.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as I close out the second reading debate on Bill C-278, I want to take this opportunity to thank all members of this House who have contributed to this debate. I know my colleagues in the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc have been particularly supportive of the bill. I thank the respective critics from those parties for their ongoing support.

I also listened with great interest to the comments from the government benches. Recognizing I only have a few minutes here today, I would like to touch briefly on a few points raised in this debate by the members across the floor.

The first point pertains to the argument that to raise EI benefits from 15 to 50 weeks could cause problems for people who have employer sponsored insured plans or private coverage. I want to be clear that my bill is not intended for people who have such coverage. My bill is intended for people who do not have coverage. Bill C-278 seeks to address the people who have no such private or corporate plans that they can access.

These people find themselves, after 15 weeks, without any money for rent, heat and groceries. This needs to be rectified. We need to have programming in place so these people can focus on getting better and not need to worry about the basic needs of keeping warm and being fed.

Another argument put forward by the new government relating to CPP long term disability benefits was that CPP was a complementary program that already serves the objectives of my bill. The rationale here, of course, is that a person can access EI sickness benefits for 15 weeks and if they have a longer term disability then they can go on CPP. In theory this sounds sensible but, regrettably, in practice it is often not the case.

The real life fact is that people are routinely denied CPP disability because they do not meet the stringent criteria. For an example of this I would encourage members on the government's benches to speak to one of their own, the Conservative member of Parliament from Saskatoon. In an early 2005 article that appeared in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, that member told the story of one of his constituents who was battling cancer but was being denied long term CPP. The member and his constituent called for EI changes to address this issue, including extending the number of weeks for sickness benefits.

What is more, even if a person is accepted for CPP long term disability, the process for applying for the program is too long. In fact, it can take over four to seven months. The EI sickness benefits are long exhausted before the CPP payments start.

In a 1999 evaluation of the CPP program, the authors commented on this issue and pointed to other countries, such as Germany and Sweden, which the hon. member mentioned. Those countries have programs similar to our EI sickness benefits but they provide support for one whole year. The program is there to bridge the gap. However, that is not why CPP is there. CPP is for long term disability. The extension of this benefit would get people through the crunch and help them to again become productive members in our society. That is what the bill is all about.

I know all of us here have people coming to our constituency offices regularly looking for an extension to their EI sickness benefits. If all members were to check with their offices I think they would see that this is happening with increased regularity. Because of the regularity of this happening at my office in Cape Breton, I felt there was a need to find a solution, which is the solution in Bill C-278.

Over the past several months I have been fortunate to have prestigious organizations, noted individuals and others join me in this initiative. This includes the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Lung Association. I have letters from social workers at the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto and the Canadian Auto Workers.

I could go on and on but the reality is that we need this bill and I thank all members for joining me in support of this bill. The bill shows compassion and members who vote against the bill shows they are heartless.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to the order made earlier today the division stands deferred until Tuesday, December 5, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

It being 2:17 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:17 p.m.)