House of Commons Hansard #162 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was adoption.

Topics

Motion in amendmentCitizenship ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

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

Motion in amendmentCitizenship ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motion in amendmentCitizenship ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

Motion in amendmentCitizenship ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Greg Thompson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with a further amendment.

Motion in amendmentCitizenship ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Motion in amendmentCitizenship ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motion in amendmentCitizenship ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

Motion in amendmentCitizenship ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The chief government whip is rising on a point of order.

Motion in amendmentCitizenship ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Prince George—Peace River B.C.

Conservative

Jay Hill ConservativeSecretary of State and Chief Government Whip

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to take the Chair a bit by surprise, but there has just been consultation among all the parties and I think you would find the unanimous support of the House this afternoon for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of this House, Bill C-14, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption), be deemed read a third time and passed.

I also believe that you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.

Motion in amendmentCitizenship ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Does the minister have the consent of the House to propose the motion?

Motion in amendmentCitizenship ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motion in amendmentCitizenship ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Motion in amendmentCitizenship ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motion in amendmentCitizenship ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

Motion in amendmentCitizenship ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

moved that Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine), be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin the third reading debate on my private member's bill, Bill C-278, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act. This bill, if adopted, would extend the maximum period for which benefits for illness, injury or quarantine may be paid from 15 weeks to 50 weeks.

Unfortunately, our rules in this House dictate that unless this bill gets the necessary royal recommendation from the Conservative government the question on the motion for third reading will not be put. In other words, the bill will die.

I cannot understand why the Conservative government will not allow this bill to proceed, as the majority of members in this House have supported this bill at second reading and have endorsed it again at report stage.

The Conservative government is aware that we have received support from across Canada and from all 308 ridings. The Conservatives all realize there is support from across Canada for this bill. We have received support from doctors, nurses, oncology departments, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Heart and Stroke Foundation and, most importantly, from constituents all across Canada who are battling illness and whose EI benefits have ended.

I am pleading on behalf of all those people across this country who need our help and I am asking the Conservatives to find it in their hearts to do the right thing and give this bill a royal recommendation.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

1 p.m.

Blackstrap Saskatchewan

Conservative

Lynne Yelich ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member if he has done an evaluation of how much this would cost the EI program. Has he done any cost analysis?

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

1 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that this question has been asked.

There are two ways of looking at this bill. Yes, it is going to cost the EI program. The cost varies. As we realize, a study was done by HRDC, and also by the committee, I might add. It could vary from $300 million to $500 million so it is probably around $400 million. The cost depends on whether everybody fills the whole amount of weeks.

More importantly, it has been found in most European countries that bridging workers when there is illness is a net benefit to society. They are not lost in the welfare system or the pension system. When we bridge them through that sickness to health, they come back to work. Those countries are finding that time and time again. Especially in our society, where there is going to be a shortage of workers, we could keep these sick workers and help them through.

At the end of the day, it is a net benefit to our society. That is why the government should support it.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

1 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, this is the first I was aware of that the member was not going to get the support from the government side of the House. This is absolutely cruel.

We all have had constituents come into our offices who happened to get sick through no fault of their own. If they are laid off they have the benefit of the EI system for a considerable length of time, but when they get sick, which is clearly beyond their control, they cannot acquire benefits. The hon. member's bill would create some humanity for those individuals who get sick.

I am wondering if the Conservative government gave any reasons for not allowing this royal assent. We know there is a surplus in the EI fund, which the government opposite tends to be using in other ways, such as buying military equipment and so on and so forth. It is using the surpluses from that workers' fund.

What reason is the heartless government on the other side giving for not supporting workers who happen to get sick on the job?

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

1 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Malpeque for being here this afternoon and raising that question.

Yes, the Conservatives asked questions. They asked questions at committee. They said there were other programs, but there are no other programs. There are no other government programs. The other program is welfare, and if someone has a home and a car, that person cannot get welfare. As well, getting onto a disability pension takes a year. They also mentioned insurance systems. For the average person who works in a Tim Hortons shop or in a fish plant, there is nothing for them.

The excuses are getting watered down. I really think that the Conservatives know this is a good bill. It is too bad, because they should have done the right thing and had it in their last budget. They knew it was coming. If they wanted to take credit for it, they could have taken credit for it and put it in their last budget, but they did not do that.

I have talked to many members from the Conservative Party who believe in this bill. I will not name them in this House. Like the member for Malpeque said, every MP across this country has constituents coming to their offices on this issue, and they are finding out these people are losing their cars, et cetera.

One of the most important things we find out about people who get cancer and need chemotherapy is that on top of all the treatment and finding the money for the drugs they are hit with the financial stress. That was brought up in committee by the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Canadian Cancer Society. These people have undue stress, which complicates their recovery and prevents them from getting well.

There are no excuses for why we cannot have this bill passed. Our country is doing well. These people have contributed. They have paid in. The employers have paid in as well. Employers believe in this bill.

I think that one of the most important things I can do in this House is to bring this bill forward. A lot of MPs agree with me. I hope in my heart that before the year is done we will have some changes in the EI system to accommodate these people.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

1:05 p.m.

Blackstrap Saskatchewan

Conservative

Lynne Yelich ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to also join the debate on the third reading of Bill C-278, the bill that calls for EI sickness benefits to be extended to a maximum of 50 weeks.

Our new government understands the importance of supporting our friends and neighbours who face illness and disability. Canadians have seen our budgets. They appreciate the action that their new government has taken for them over the past 15 months. They know who is standing up for them.

They have seen us introduce the new registered disability savings plan to help parents and others save money to care for family members with disabilities.

They have seen a Canada disability savings grant of $1,000 annually to promote the financial security of children in lower income families.

They have seen a $30 million investment in the Rick Hansen “man in motion” Foundation, which will help transform research into actual benefits for Canadians living with spinal cord injuries.

They have seen a $45 million new enabling accessibility fund to help Canadians who are recovering from or dealing with challenges to participate in their communities.

That is the new government's vision for meaningful ways to improve EI. The Liberals, by contrast, including the sponsor of Bill C-278, voted against each of these measures.

While the member who sponsored this bill is no doubt well-meaning when he comes to ask the House for support, I am not sure where his support went when it came to supporting the same people through several of this government's budget initiatives, which I have just outlined.

Like me, many Canadians may also wonder why he and his Liberal colleagues never did a study, passed a motion, or proposed this legislation in the 13 years that they were in government.

However, the Liberals' touch and go interest in sickness and disabilities and their spotty record alone are not reason to question this bill.

Canadians want to know how effective a new benefit will be. Is it suitable for the problem? Is it appropriate for the benefit to come from this revenue source? Canadians want to know what assurances are being offered that the benefit and the revenue source are sustainable.

When the Liberals were on this side of the House, effectiveness and sustainability were principles to which they at least paid lip service. With some programs on their watch, however, they low-balled estimates of cost. and later Canadians were left holding the bag after costs spiralled out of control.

Canadians know that our concern is not about questioning a gap that exists for some. It is about finding the right solution. It is about affording the right solution. It is about sustainability.

What is the vision of the Liberals and the opposition? It is a bit of a patchwork and not really much of a vision at all.

The Liberals would have Canadians think of and look at the bill as a one-off reform to EI, yet they have voted with the NDP and the Bloc to support several EI bills. That is their true package of reforms.

The cost of the three EI bills they have proposed as an alternative to our vision would add $6.2 billion in new annual costs to implement them. That amount of $6.2 billion in new annual costs would bankrupt the fund in very short order.

How much time and study did the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP put into making sure that these new costs were warranted and that the benefits would address what they were intended to address? It was a little over an hour of study per bill, plus about an hour each for clause by clause review. That works out to over a million dollars of new spending per second of consideration by the committee.

Canadians expect their elected representatives to have a little more respect for them and the public's money. On this side of the House, that is what we do, and so it is that we remain ready to support worthy initiatives and solutions.

Bill C-278 proposes a solution. It remains to be see whether this is the right solution coming from the right program. It remains to be seen whether it is affordable. It remains to be seen if it is sustainable. We may be ready to sign on if the member Sydney—Victoria provided government with answers to the questions the Canadian public has about his proposed solution.

Canadians are wondering if EI is the right program to expand for this new benefit. It is simply not enough to eyeball the fund's surplus and suggest that it drive a solution. Solutions need to consider the Canadian public interest. They should determine whether the need is limited merely to those who pay into EI or if it is broader, and I do not suppose that all members were able to review the transcript of the committee's proceedings at clause by clause review.

One of the fundamental shortcomings of expanding EI for the new benefit identified is it does nothing for a vast number of new Canadians. New Canadians disproportionately start their own businesses rather than being employees. They and others who are entrepreneurs run their own businesses and do not pay into EI. Why not a plan that helps them, too?

In fact, the solution the bill proposes stands to make things worse for some new Canadians. The private health and life insurance that they are able to purchase depends on a stable relationship with public insurance. Bill C-278 introduces a major change in the relationship between public and private insurance. It does so without any analysis of the impact being offered.

Will private insurers, which often cover a higher percentage of wages and for longer periods, cease to offer products that are used by the new Canadians and other entrepreneurs as a result of Bill C-278?

The House just passed Motion No. 243, which proposes that the human resources committee do a study of CPP disability this fall. Ought not this program, which is more broadly available to Canadians, be considered as one way to catch those who do not benefit from an EI program? Do Canadians not deserve a chance to reflect on their options, be consulted and provide their input?

EI sickness benefits have been structured to complement a range of other supports available for long term illness and disability. These include benefits offered by employers, private coverage held by individuals and the long term disability benefits available under the Canada pension plan and provincial programs.

However, there was no study, so no consultation and no answers for new Canadians, who the government wants to welcome and encourage to come here. There were no answers for all of us who may be called upon to fill the space that may be vacated by private insurers whose richer benefit programs are rubbed out.

Canadians are also asking about cost. Without deciding whether EI is the right program for this new benefit, how much will Bill C-278 cost?

During his appearance at the human resources standing committee, the member for Sydney—Victoria testified that the bill would cost approximately $250 million a year. Estimates from the department, however, suggest it would be more like $1.05 billion a year, four times the member's estimate.

Canadians will still recall that numbers were never the Liberals' strong suit when they were government. Now that they are opposition, not much has improved.

The discrepancy between $250 million and over $1 billion raises more questions than it does answers. Where did the member get his numbers? What did the human resources standing committee have to say to reconcile the huge and costly difference? Nothing. At the end of the day, the discrepancy went unanswered.

The member and the opposition, which is supporting the bill, are so quick to support an idea, which is long on good intentions, that they are forgetting public trust requires us to do due diligence.

Canadians made it clear in the last election that it was not acceptable for their government to be sloppy with public funds. They are tired of well-intentioned programs running out of control.

Canadians continue to have some questions about this bill, which have not been answered by the member for Sydney—Victoria. They have not been answered by those who are supporting the good intentions of the bill.

It is precisely because the duration of sickness benefits is such an important issue for all Canadians that our government believes this matter deserves very careful consideration. It is because it is important that we want to find a solution that is sustainable, smart and effective.

Members may in fact recall that Conservatives on the human resources committee supported the notion of studying the potential extension of EI sickness benefits, as proposed in the February 2005 HUMA report.

As Canada's new government, we acted on that by asking officials in the Department of Human Resources and Social Development to gather the facts and evidence that would inform us all in how to build the right solution. Their work in this regard is underway.

The member for Sydney—Victoria and the opposition are putting the cart ahead of the horse. They are not looking for the facts from the department. They passed on Motion No. 243, presented to gather the facts themselves. The opposition did not want to listen to any of the people who helped contribute to the public and the private insurance programs.

Let me tell the House what we do know about how the current maximum 15—

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Gatineau.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

1:15 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak today to Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine). I take this bill very seriously, as well as the fact that I have the honour to speak to this issue.

This bill extends the maximum period for which benefits for illness, injury or quarantine may be paid from 15 to 50 weeks. I believe this is a very laudable principle and the Bloc Québécois supports it wholeheartedly.

To put things in perspective, I will say that the Bloc Québécois worked hard at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to get a report on EI reform through in February 2005, and that it continues to ask for its implementation. In the past two years, the Bloc Québécois has worked relentlessly on improving the system. This bill builds on the spirit of recommendation 27 made in the February 2005 report, which says:

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 bill is totally in this spirit.

The Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of substantial improvements to the EI system and while the Bloc intends to vote in favour of the bill, the House must nonetheless remember that the bill introduced by my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle is more comprehensive than that of the Liberals, who still do not propose a fundamental reform of an EI system that is ill adapted and inaccessible for 50% of those who should be insured. For the benefit of this House and of all those interested in the issue—who are many in Quebec and Canadian society—I will read some of the 28 recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

First, the committee recommends the creation of an independent EI fund.

Second, on the administration issue, the committee recommends that the money in the fund be used only for EI purposes and not to pay back the federal government debt. That money comes from employers and employees. It must be used as employment insurance for employees who, at some point during their career, find themselves in need. EI benefits then become a solution for them. The government, be it Conservative or Liberal, should not be allowed to help itself freely from the fund to finance its expenses. Workers in need deserve the respect of the government.

The committee also recommends the following: that employers be reimbursed overpayments of premiums—what else would it do?—; that a standard eligibility period of 360 hours be established throughout Canada and Quebec; that the maximum period of regular benefits be increased to 50 weeks; that the benefit period be extended by five weeks in order to cover what is known as the spring gap, the period of about one and a half months where there are no benefits before seasonal work begins again. This would provide seasonal workers with income needed for their families rather than having them live with considerable uncertainty.

We are also asking for additional benefits after the 50 weeks for workers who are 50 and over, especially for those having difficulty finding work because of their age, for those experiencing a form of discrimination I would say.

The benefit calculation should be based on the 12 best weeks of insurable employment. This will provide a more decent income for our citizens who need it. Therefore, the calculation should be based on the 12 best weeks and not on the 12 last weeks.

The rate of benefits should increase from 55% to 60% of their earnings.

Finally—this is the last item that I wanted to highlight from the list—we are asking that the waiting period be eliminated for persons in approved training programs, so that they are not sent on training without any income. That is a bit of a contradiction. We want them to be trained in order to return to the labour market. However, if they do not have any income, they are not interested in training because they will not have any money to meet their needs during the weeks of training approved by those responsible.

This bill highlights the importance of reforming employment insurance. As such, we hope that parliamentarians, my colleagues here, will vote in favour of the real improvements proposed in Bill C-278. I would like to go through my list of these major improvements, which is similar to the one given earlier.

First, we must reduce the minimum qualifying period to 360 hours of work, regardless of the regional unemployment rate. Second, we must increase the benefit period by five weeks. Third, we must increase the weekly benefit rate from 55% to 60%. Fourth, we must eliminate the waiting period. Fifth, we have to eliminate the distinctions between new entrants and re-entrants to the work force. Sixth, we have to eliminate the presumption that people who are related to one another do not deal with each other at arm's length. Seventh, we have to increase the maximum annual insurable earnings from $39,000 to $41,500 and introduce an indexation formula. And finally, the benefit calculation must be based on the 12 best insurable weeks.

It is important that we all support this bill because it offers solutions to problems experienced by vulnerable people who lose their jobs. As someone said earlier, that is the heart of the matter. This affects people who are sick and need their benefits extended. In that respect, we must consider a universal 360 hour requirement to receive employment insurance benefits.

I see that my time has run out, but I would just like to add that it was important to me to talk about this bill. We must go forward with this kind of bill. We have to think of the people whose employment situation makes them vulnerable. That is our duty, and we must fulfill it.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine).

This is a very important proposal and I would hope, as the member for Sydney—Victoria pleaded earlier, that a royal recommendation might be forthcoming from the government to deal with this important legislation.

The legislation, as we have heard, would extend the possibility of EI benefits in the case of illness from a maximum of 15 weeks to a maximum of 50 weeks. That would be a very important improvement to our EI program.

We need to make those kinds of improvements to our EI legislation. We know how many Canadians depend on EI at some point or other in their working lives. We know how important it is to people from coast to coast to coast in Canada.

I found it passing strange that the parliamentary secretary argued that somehow passing the bill would be a detriment to new Canadians, to new immigrants in Canada and that somehow they would not benefit from this kind of legislation.

I do not think anything could be further from the truth. Many new immigrants, new Canadians, and many people new to the workforce in Canada would directly benefit from the provisions of the legislation. I do not for a second understand why the parliamentary secretary would suggest otherwise.

In fact, many new Canadians have come to Canada because of Canada's social programs. They know Canada is a society that shows concern for all of its citizens and seeks to work together collectively to help citizens over difficult periods in their lives. Legislation like the EI legislation is exactly one of the things that makes Canada attractive to people considering immigration.

We must make improvements to the EI legislation. This has not been done for many years and it needs to be undertaken. We have heard many times, and I will repeat, that there is a $50 billion surplus in what is collected from workers and employers for this program. There is far more money taken in by the government in terms of the EI check-offs that both employers and employees pay than is spent on delivering the program.

We do have the ability to fund improvements. The money that is collected from the EI contributions workers and employers should be used for the program. This is particularly important for workers, but I know that employers also recognize the importance of our EI program.

The ongoing debt that Canada experiences should not be paid on the backs of workers who need the support of the EI program. That $50 billion we talk about sometimes is an EI fund. The Conservatives in the past have even talked about formalizing it as an EI fund. That money should be used for employment insurance programming, and the bill would go some way to ensuring that would be done.

As a member of Parliament and as a constituency assistance, I have spoken to many people in the almost 21 years that I have served in those capacities. They face terrible hardship because of the limitations on EI, especially when combined with the length of time it takes to qualify for CPP disability benefit and with the generally low levels of social assistance.

I do not know how many times I sat with people who faced the end of their medical benefits and who were still unable to return to work. The pressure of that moment was unbearable for many of them and for their families. It was often one of the most difficult moments when I had to stand in solidarity with someone who came into the office in which I worked or into my current office.

We know that economic security can be a factor in recovery from a serious illness or injury. The stress of being unable to pay our rent, or to buy food or to provide for our children does nothing to help anyone recover.

I am convinced that the bill might even lessen health care costs by helping to ensure better conditions for recovery from a serious illness or injury.

We know that often people are forced to consider long term disability when, if only a slightly longer recovery period had been available, they would have been able to return to work. They would have been able to see their recovery out and get back to their jobs. We know it is much harder to get back to the workforce from CPP disability or from any disability program than it is from EI medical benefits.

It would be a great personal benefit to Canadians who become ill or are injured in their recovery and return to work if the provisions of this bill were implemented in Canada. It would be a great benefit to our society. I believe it makes sense to take the actions necessary to get people back to work rather than have them just get by on welfare or have to claim CPP disability.

We know the recovery time for serious diseases is often longer than the 15 weeks that are now possible for an EI medical claim. Cancer patients, breast cancer patients and leukemia patients in particular can require 9 to 12 months to recover. We also know that when someone returns to work too early after a serious illness the consequences can be both serious and expensive.

That is why organizations like the Canadian Cancer Society and the Lung Association of Nova Scotia support this legislation. Representatives from both of those organizations testified before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities that was studying this bill.

Mr. Kenneth Kyle, the director of public issues at the Canadian Cancer Society, provided the standing committee with five reasons that the Cancer Society supported this particular legislation.

First, he noted that diagnostic times are often long for full cancer diagnosis and there are often waiting times between surgery and treatment, making the 15 weeks a serious limitation.

Second, he noted that treatment and recovery are often spread out over many months for cancer patients.

Third, he noted that collateral financial stresses, the costs of uninsured treatment and drugs, travel costs for specialized treatment, special diets, those extras that occur around the time of a serious illness, particularly with cancer, are also a hardship that this bill would serve to relieve.

Fourth, he said that chemo patients can be immune suppressed for a period of time and need to remain segregated from groups, thereby requiring longer than the 15 week period to ensure their recovery to full health and the ability to work.

Fifth, he noted that the lingering effects after treatment with chemotherapy are sometimes difficult to document, including issues like chemo fog, fatigue, personality changes, things that often make a return to work difficult in the parameters that are currently envisioned under the Employment Insurance Act.

Those are all excellent reasons that we should be giving serious consideration to this legislation and that the government should be giving serious consideration to ensuring there is a royal recommendation for it.

I want to point out that doctors would still be required to provide a medical certificate so that the decision about EI medical benefits, even if it is extended to the 50 weeks, would still be made on the basis of medical evidence, which is as it should be.

We also know that currently the average EI medical benefit claim is for 9.5 weeks. This would be a significant improvement and would allow others to take advantage of that important option.

We had a debate this afternoon about the estimates of the cost of extending this benefit. In committee, testimony was given that it would be around $250 million a year. The parliamentary secretary said this afternoon that her estimate was closer to $1 billion a year. I hasten to add that it is clear we have a $50 billion surplus in the EI fund that would allow us to undertake this kind of important change to the EI legislation. I believe this is an affordable course of action to take, but more than that, I also belive it is the right thing to do.

I will conclude by again calling on the government to ensure that a royal recommendation is possible for this legislation so that we can ensure that Canadians who face a serious illness or injury have the appropriate length of time to recover, get back into the workforce and not have to take other measures that are less desirable both for them personally and for society as a whole.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by paying tribute to the front line health care workers, volunteers, advocacy groups such as the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Canadian Cancer Society, and the home care workers who have done so much to help craft this bill and whose efforts on behalf of sick and disabled Canadians mean so much.

We are here to discuss Bill C-278, presented by my hon. colleague from Sydney—Victoria, in Nova Scotia. This bill aims to extend the maximum period for which EI sickness benefits may be paid from 15 weeks to 50 weeks, in the event of illness, injury or quarantine.

Current legislation allows the claimant to receive up to a maximum of 15 weeks. The time for which a claimant is eligible is determined by a medical certificate from a health care professional attesting to the person's inability to work and stating the probable duration of the illness.

Many of us have had constituents, friends and family members who have experienced financial hardship as they recovered from a debilitating disease or trauma, such as cancer, heart disease, or any other serious illness we face as a nation.

A persistent scenario, however, and one very familiar to many MPs is the reality that there are people who have applied for EI sickness benefits and have received the full 15 weeks but are still unable to return to the workforce within the stipulated period.

When the Employment Insurance Act was adopted in the 1990s, sickness benefits were compassionately paid to people who could not work temporarily because of an illness.

Certainly, this financial support is an incentive to allow individuals to focus on treatment and get well so that they can return to the workforce as soon as possible.

Our Canada pension plan does not have the flexibility to allow people to receive benefits if they are in a position to eventually return to work, if they cannot work for a prolonged period or if they leave the job market and later want to return to work, given the length of their illness.

I hope to present my own bill, now on the order paper, to amend the Canada pension plan, or CPP, so that people who suffer from an episodic illness may receive benefits from the system under the circumstances that I just mentioned.

Many people in this country mistakenly believe that recipients who have exhausted their sickness benefits need only apply for Canada pension plan disability benefits. As I'm sure many of my hon. colleagues know, this system has very strict eligibility criteria. Access to benefits is often refused because the disability is not complete. The few people who do meet the eligibility criteria must go through an application process that takes about three months. Then there is an even longer waiting period before they begin receiving their CPP disability benefits.

Furthermore, most doctors approve CPP applications only if the illness is expected to last more than a year.

Today Canadians encounter three grave and growing threats to their health: cancer, heart disease and stroke. Many of these illnesses which once represented death are now curable or preventable all because of new and constantly emerging technologies.

Let us be clear that the existing system is not doing enough. Because our health system is so weak and wait times are so lengthy, for most individuals waiting for care, 15 weeks is insufficient to cover wait times for diagnostic tests prior to receiving a diagnosis. Then there is a further lengthy period of time before treatment can begin. Therefore, how can we as policy makers expect 15 weeks to include the recovery period when individuals at the end of that time might still be waiting for treatment to begin? Cancer treatment could typically continue over a period of several months.

This can have financial consequences for families, who must bear the costs of uninsured treatments and drugs, travel costs for specialized treatments, costs for special diets and non-prescribed medical supplies.

For example, a 2004 survey of women with breast cancer revealed that at least 76% of respondents had not worked for more than 15 weeks; 75% said that the 15 weeks of employment insurance benefits did not cover the treatment period.

Indulge me while I quote from some of the testimony given by Mr. Kenneth Kyle, the director of public issues at the Canadian Cancer Society, when he attended the legislative committee hearings studying this bill. He said:

For many patients the recovery from the effects of cancer often takes many months. Requiring recovering cancer patients to return to the workforce before they have regained some measure of improved health is to put in jeopardy the patients' and their families' prospects for recovery.

The head of oncology at the Cape Breton Cancer Centre, Dr. Ron MacCormick, is on record as saying that he would be more than willing to testify to the fact that it can take up to one year after treatment for a person who has had cancer to begin to regain his or her energy. In fact, most oncologists will tell us that treatment, surgery, chemotherapy or radiation alone can take up to a year, so we are not even talking about the recovery period.

As decision-makers, we have not yet considered these patients who are forced to work during the current 15-week benefit period, much less the people suffering from chronic illnesses such as sickle-cell anemia, requiring periodic hospitalization, or those who suffer side effects from prescription drugs.

The bill will greatly help people who have had bypass surgery and who cannot return to work during the usual eight to twelve week recovery period. It will also help the many stroke survivors who have moderate or minor disabilities and are not eligible for CPP because they do not have what is considered a serious disability.

The harsh reality is that diseases such as these are striking younger and younger people. Many of them have not had an opportunity to properly begin their careers, establish themselves or invest in RRSPs that they might be able to access in the case of illness. Many of them have the potential and expectations of returning to the workforce to continue their careers.

At the risk of berating the point, we are an aging society. It is therefore even more important to put in place the necessary financial support systems to bridge the gap for those workers who depend solely on employment insurance sick benefits while incapacitated.

According to the 2007 cancer statistics, there is a five year relative survival ratio of 80% which means that people with cancer have an 80% likelihood of living for five years after diagnosis compared to similar people in the general population.

Since I do not have much time left—thank you, Mr. Speaker for the warning—I would like to conclude by saying the following.

I would urge my fellow members to support the bill. It is a bill for our times. EI sickness benefits remain the only viable vehicle to help alleviate the financial burden for individuals suffering from a major illness and for whom 15 weeks is simply not enough to get better and return to work.

The bill will die unless the government brings forward the necessary royal recommendation. The Conservatives appear to be deliberate in their lack of movement on the bill. The way that the Conservatives are behaving, and actions speak louder than words, one can only assume it is their intent to let the bill die.

Again, I call on the government to bring forward a royal recommendation, so that the bill can become law and Canadians can indeed regain the faith they obviously need in knowing that their government cares about their health and well-being, and is not playing petty politics with their lives.