Debates of Feb. 7th, 2019

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.

EI has different rules across the country. It depends on the unemployment in various areas. However, sickness benefits are the same across the country. The member mentioned the study, and it shows that this is helping people get through that moment when they need help.

That is also why I want to bring it to committee. There are so many new findings out there about how people recover when they are not under stress. That is part of it. That study shows it. There are also European studies. There has been a lot of stuff done in Europe showing how people get back into the workforce, almost seamlessly. People say, “Oh, were you gone?”, and the answer is, yes, they were gone but came right back in.

The numbers have come out, and I think it is 135,000 right now, maximizing the number. Just because it goes for 50 weeks, it does not mean people are going to use those 50 weeks. They might only have to have 35 weeks. The study speaks for itself, and an in-depth study at committee would bring out the numbers.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria who I know has been extraordinarily committed to this cause for some time. I have a constituent, who the House will hear more about later during my remarks, who has been personally affected by this issue. I had the opportunity to introduce her to my colleague in Halifax last April.

This has become a personal issue for me, because I learned about it from one of my constituents. I am curious. So many years ago, when the member first took up the torch, what was it, or who was it, that caused him to take on this cause and champion it so strongly here in Ottawa?

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

Mr. Speaker, it all started when I became a member of Parliament. I did not even know what private members' bills were. I got up here and found out what they were, that it is when an MP wants to move something forward.

At that time, there was a lady in my office who worked for me for many years, Darlene Morrison. I talked to her about private members' bills. I asked her what was the thing that really struck her the most, the thing that we should be doing more about as a country, as a government. She mentioned the cases that we were getting about people who were sick and falling through the cracks. That is where it started. It started right in my office.

Then, of course, I was meeting these people and having them coming into the office. These were people we see every day, people in the grocery stores, people who are functioning in society, vibrant people, with families, who have everything happening for them. Then, all of a sudden, they are in my office, in tears, because their life is falling apart because they cannot make their payments.

I appreciate the member, and I appreciate his bringing one of his constituents to me. That is where it started. That is why I am going to keep pushing this. I am not going to give up.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I arrived on Parliament Hill just six months ago. I have met many wonderful people here, including two I did not get to work with very often and who were taken from us by a horrible disease. I want to take this opportunity to offer my condolences to the families and friends of Michael Ferguson and Paul Dewar, two great Canadians we lost this week.

In the few interactions I had with Mr. Ferguson, I developed a great deal of respect for his thoroughness and values of justice. His exemplary reports were critical of both the Conservative and the Liberal governments and forced us to keep the course and to remember that we serve each and every Canadian.

I must admit that I did not know Paul Dewar before the photo shoot for the Parliamentarian of the Year awards, for which I was asked to prepare a few words in recognition of this big-hearted man. I will, however, always remember his speech. That evening, Mr. Dewar spoke about collaboration and working together. He asked everyone there to remember when they first got interested in politics and in serving the public.

I wanted to be the voice in Ottawa of the proud people living in the riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and also in the beautiful region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. It is satisfying when every person I meet shares a part of their life with me. When I went door-to-door, many people talked to me about EI sickness benefits. I am pleased today to address their concerns and support their efforts, by debating in the House Motion No. 201, moved by my colleague from Sydney—Victoria, which reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities should examine the possibility and practicality of extending the maximum number of weeks of Employment Insurance sick benefits for those with long term illnesses; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than six months from the adoption of this motion.

I also think the subject reflects the wishes of Mr. Dewar, who said that we are stronger together. To borrow his words, is it not time to take off the armour of our political party and work together as people representing citizens to build a better country for everyone?

The reason I am speaking in the House today is that, as the Quebec Conservatives said, 15 weeks of EI benefits for people with chronic illnesses is not enough.

I would like to echo the sentiments of Marie-Hélène Dubé, the founder of the “15 weeks to heal is not enough” movement, who said that partisanship has no place in matters as important as illness. She made that statement during the general council for Quebec Conservatives that was held in Saint-Hyacinthe in May 2018.

On that same weekend, our dynamic Quebec members also expressed their support for Ms. Dubé's movement. As I learned on the campaign trail, and as everyone has probably realized at some point, it is all too easy to fall into a financial abyss after a serious illness. The financial burden only adds to the anxiety and fear. That does not help the healing process.

It is vital that we do our job as MPs and support our fellow Canadians who are already dealing with the stress of a serious illness. They should not have to worry about whether they will have enough money to make ends meet. I had already approached my Conservative caucus colleagues about this on my own initiative. I am very proud to debate it today in the House, where we seem to be coming to a consensus.

I support the motion because that will give us the opportunity to discuss it in detail in committee. Committee is the appropriate forum in which to closely examine all of the potential impacts of increasing the maximum number of weeks of sickness benefits and to work together to lay the groundwork for a joint proposal in the interests of all Canadians. It is important to look at the costs and benefits of such a proposal. It is also critical to determine what impact it would have on Canadian taxpayers.

Here are a few examples of the details that need to be worked out in committee. First, can we look into the possibility of shortening processing times and doing away with the deductible that is the one-week waiting period? Second, can we ensure that the system pays for itself without increasing employer and employee premiums? Finally, can we analyze regional differences as we do for regular EI benefits?

According to the “Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report”, in 2016-17, the average duration of employment insurance sickness benefits was 9.8 weeks, and 35.7% of claimants exhausted the maximum entitlement of 15 weeks.

What is more, the average duration of EI sickness benefits increased with the age of claimants. As many people have told me, when cancer hits, it is not hard to imagine how more than 15 weeks of benefits may be needed.

First, the awful news comes as a shock to the person and those close to them. Then the person has to wait for surgery when surgery is possible. That may be followed by rounds of radiation and chemotherapy. If the disease is inoperable, treatment may make it operable. Before getting any good news, however, the person may have been unable to work for several months or even a year. I wonder if there is some way to target illnesses or injuries that require more than 15 weeks of benefits.

According to the “Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report”, age is a factor in the number of weeks needed for full recovery. I imagine the type of illness or injury is too. If we want to control costs and act responsibly, might we consider scaling the maximum number of benefit weeks based on categories of injury or illness?

In conclusion, I am sure that, by working together, we can find a solution to help those who need help by increasing the maximum number of weeks of sickness benefits for people with serious illnesses without having a significant impact on the federal budget or hard-working Canadians like the people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 201, which states, in part:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities should examine the possibility and practicality of extending the maximum number of weeks of Employment Insurance sick benefits for those with long term illnesses....

While my colleagues in the NDP and I will ultimately be supporting this motion, I cannot begin to express my disappointment in a Liberal government that is more focused on looking like it is doing things rather than actually doing them. The Liberal Party knows what is needed. The Liberals have had almost four years of a majority government to do this, but instead, have chosen to make Canadians wait longer.

That being said, the idea of extending El sick benefits is one that is long overdue and one that we as New Democrats support and have advocated for fervently. Since 1971, there has been no change to the amount of El sick benefits. People across our country are struggling. Inflation has risen 520% since then; the middle class has shrunk since then; wages have deflated since that time, and yet we are still stuck at 15 weeks.

Fifteen weeks is the current maximum number of weeks that Canadians with a long-term illness or an injury are allowed to take to help them cope with their incapacity to work. It is not enough.

When folks are struggling, we should be lifting them up. When people are sick, we should be able to comfort them. The toll that a long-term sickness or injury takes is large enough and we should not be making it harder on Canadians.

I am proud that we in the NDP have taken a strong position on extending these benefits. This is no surprise, because remember: It is our party that has a history for fighting for the well-being of people. We are the ones that brought in health care under Tommy Douglas. We have been committed to improving access and care, a fight we continue today.

Issue after issue, the Liberal government is almost where it needs to be in rhetoric but is not there in action. With pharmacare, the Liberals announced a tepid version preferred by industry rather than true universal pharmacare. On dental care, they are nowhere to be found. On child care, it is the same.

A proper health care system that truly caters to people's needs would include these things, plus increased access to mental health care, greater work protections for the sick, and the list goes on.

Clearly, there is a lot of work left to be done to fulfill Tommy Douglas's dream. Extending EI sick benefits would also be part of that vision.

New Democrats have been at the forefront of this fight. I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam, who throughout his career has fought to improve the quality of EI sick benefits, proposing multiple pieces of legislation that would have made a real difference in people's lives.

He was inspired by Natalie Thomas, a cancer survivor from his riding, whose story highlighted the changes needed to the EI act. Natalie was recovering from breast cancer surgery and was forced to return to work because her EI sick benefits ran out. Canadians like her should not be forced to go back to work so quickly. They should be focused on getting better, and that is what we need.

My colleague from Hamilton Mountain recently told me a story about a constituent of his, Elaine, who donated a kidney to save someone's life. I think we can all agree that what Elaine did was incredible and we should be supporting her. The problem is we did not.

She wrote to my colleague that she would get an EI rate of 55% of her pay. She was the sole breadwinner in the household. Her husband had some severe health issues and was unable to have a full-time job. She also had to take care of her 93-year-old father. This was a severe hardship on her family but the person desperately needed a kidney transplant, and yet, because of the rules, she was forced to go back to work far too early. The recipient was off work for four to six months and only received EI for 15 weeks. She did not have a short-term benefit and she too was forced to go back to work early as she could not afford to stay off work to recover 100%.

A system that forces organ donors and recipients to go back to work while they recover is not a system that is working. We need fundamental change.

We already heard the story of Marie-Hélène Dubé. Marie-Hélène is a cancer survivor who presented a petition calling on the federal government to increase the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50.

More than 600,000 Canadians signed that petition, the most of any petition in Canada. Clearly, Canadians want change.

Why are so many Canadians responding to Marie-Hélène Dubé's call for 50 weeks? Currently, almost 40% of Canadians using El sick benefits are maxing them out. For many Canadians, they have a choice at that point, return to work still injured, or receive an income or leave their jobs to focus on getting better. Neither are acceptable options. The reality is that Canadians tend to need 50 weeks to recover from illness and injury. We are not even covering a third of the needed time, and Canadians deserve better.

Following the 2015 election, many Canadians had hope for sunnier days ahead from the government and the early results were encouraging for some. In 2016, the Minister of Social Development publicly committed to expanding El sick benefits. It has been two years and there has been nothing.

Instead of working to improve people's lives, the Liberals are proposing another study, another study that in all likelihood will not have time to finish its work before the next election. I know the government likes to talk a good progressive game while accomplishing very little, but even for them this is a little rich. Canadians like Natalie and Marie-Hélène deserve more than another study. They deserve more than 15 weeks.

Let us not forget everyone who does not even qualify for these benefits, who the government consistently ignores. I am thinking of young people, the precariously unemployed and underemployed, people in my riding and all across the country who need a bit of help, but the government is not there to give it to them.

When rich American billionaires want pipelines built, the government goes the extra mile. When SNC-Lavalin breaks the law, the government looks like it is there for it. However, when regular Canadians are being forced to return to work either sick or injured or quit their jobs because they are too sick to perform, the government does not even budge an inch. It will propose a study, but it certainly will not do anything to actually improve someone's life.

The hypocrisy and cynicism of this type of politics that privileges style over substance is typical of the government. We see it in the government's attitude toward reconciliation and indigenous peoples. We see it in its attitude toward the environment. We see it in its attitude toward the sick and injured.

The worst part is that the government acknowledges that it will not have time to make any changes to EI. Not even six months ago, the Minister of Social Development admitted that there was not time to make changes to the El sickness system, given the federal election. The government is open about the fact that it cannot make the changes it needs to make and that this, all of this, is just window dressing.

The motion will pass and the Liberals will pretend it is a win, but it is not. The motion represents four years of the Liberals refusing to fix the problem. It represents almost half a decade of successive Liberal and Conservative governments ignoring the issue.

My colleagues and I will vote in support of the motion, but we do it understanding that this is not the change that Canadians deserve. We do it because we support the principle of extending El sick benefits. It is a pity that the government's actions show that it does not.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and a privilege to rise to discuss this important private member's motion, brought forward by my colleague, the member for Sydney—Victoria.

The moral measure of any government is how its society treats its most vulnerable people, its children, its elderly, its poor and its sick. In Nova Scotia, we hear constantly about the challenges that face our health care system. As a federal representative, so many of the day-to-day decisions when it comes to health care are driven by the provincial government. It is frustrating to hear people raise everyday concerns. It could be someone just like us, our sister, father or mother. Oftentimes we feel frustration because there is not as much we can do at the federal level to help deliver those day-to-day services we hear so much about in our constituency office.

There are a number of ways the government can support the vulnerable and the sick. One of them is staring us in the face with the motion before us. The motion is very simple. At its core, it recognizes there is a problem that sickness benefits do not extend for a long enough period to provide people with the coverage they need. By supporting the motion, we will get the information we need to execute on a policy that will provide that coverage and ensure that people have the financial support they need to get through times of extraordinary difficulty.

As the member said during his remarks, this is not only the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do.

We can all appreciate the importance of employment insurance. It exists for a number of reasons, to help people when they need it most and to help people who need it most. In Atlantic Canada, the predominance of our seasonal industries require that EI is there at certain times of the year for people who find themselves out of work but do not want to leave home. My family benefited significantly from the EI program for parents of critically ill children when our daughter was born with certain health concerns.

Our government made certain changes to expand parental leave, extending it to five weeks and giving more flexibility over 18 months for new parents as well. We extended the compassionate care benefit for up to six months for people who were taking care of loved ones. We reduced waiting periods and made a series of other changes to the important EI program.

However, there remains a critical gap for those people who find they cannot go to work because they have fallen ill. At its core, the problem is this. If one becomes sick, one can claim EI benefits for a period of 15 weeks. Conversely, if one gets fired or laid off, one can claim for a much longer period of time, up to 50 weeks. There is a dissonance between these two periods of time that just does not make sense to me. It is unfathomable to me that in 2019, in Canada of all places, one is better off to get fired than to get cancer.

This is a file I care very deeply about, because one of my constituents came into my office early on in our mandate. Her name is Kathy MacNaughton. She is a sweet person. She is everything we could hope for in a community member. She cares deeply about her family and her community. Kathy and her family were dealt one heck of a blow a few years back when her husband David was diagnosed with esophageal cancer at the young age of 50. David passed away not too long thereafter, and it put her family in an extraordinarily difficult position.

There are so many other families like Kathy's that are living this reality every day, and there is something we can do to help them. Kathy made a final promise to her partner before he passed that she would continue to fight until she effected the kind of change that would have helped a family like hers going forward. She met with my predecessor before the last federal election. She has met with me. She has met with local MLAs. She has even engaged in the political policy development process with parties to help us arrive at a policy we can agree on to make this change happen. If every citizen was as engaged as Kathy was, I cannot imagine what a wonderful country this would be.

We know the current policy is insufficient, because 35% of the people who claim EI sickness benefits max them out. I think the number is somewhere in the range of 135,000 people who max out these benefits every year. This is a serious problem. There are 135,000 Canadians who are not receiving the benefits they need because they have become sick.

I note that this year one of the only three recommendations the Canadian Cancer Society has put forward in advance of the next federal budget is to extend EI sickness benefits to 26 weeks. I have met with its representatives in my office. This is something we can and must do.

It is a fabulous opportunity to make a real difference in people's lives. If we invest in people when they fall ill, they will be better able to return to the workforce.

In Kathy's example, her husband was earning about $6,000 a month before he was diagnosed. That was reduced to a small fraction, less than $2,000 a month when he qualified for the EI sickness benefits. When he finally did qualify for CPP near the end of his life, they were taking in $852 a month. Kathy describes herself and her family as one of the lucky ones. She was working and had some sort of insurance, as so many other families do. Imagine families trying to cover the bills for food or for a mortgage on $852 a month when they were previously taking in $6,000.

The fact is that we are setting off a spiral for so many families that may lose their homes, maybe choosing between keeping the lights on or having food for their kids. These are very real, practical choices that make a difference in the lives of people like Kathy. I made a commitment to her to work with my colleagues, including the member for Sydney—Victoria, who she had the chance to meet, to ensure that this happened. I will not give up on it until we see this change implemented in the law.

People who fall ill with something like cancer, serious heart disease or other terminal illnesses have better things to worry about. They should worry about spending time with their families and recovering rather than where their next cheque is going to come from. Show me a cancer survivor who is fully recuperated and goes back to work after 15 weeks. It is not realistic. Everyone in the House knows someone, probably loves someone, who has been impacted by cancer. To think that we assume in less than four months people are going to be fully recovered, the system is not fair the way it is today and we need to work to change it together.

The benefits of moving forward with the study the member has proposed are numerous. We should understand the cost of this step before we implement it. We should understand how many people are specifically affected. If there are certain people who are suffering from certain kinds of illnesses that are currently not getting coverage, that is helpful information that would come out in the course of the study.

One of the members of the Conservative Party pointed out that there may be regional difference in terms of what illnesses would impact people and who would qualify for this benefit. It would helpful to be made aware of that. As I mentioned, there are a number of frustrations that I have as a federal representative when I know how important health is to my constituents. There are policy items that we are removing the chains on, like moving toward implementing a pharmacare system in Canada.

In the last few years, we saw a transfer to the provinces that was the largest in Canada's history, with a specific carve out for mental health and in-home care for seniors. For provinces like mine, that is $130 million extra for mental health and $157 million for in-home care for seniors. However, it is so important that we are not just sending money to provinces and telling them to do what they want. It is important to realize we can provide the wraparound supports for families to ensure they do not fall victim to a vicious cycle when they are forced into poverty to cover the costs of their illness.

Every cancer survivor who I have spoken to has told me that it has taken an incredible economic toll on his or her family for little things like gas to the city. I am from northern Nova Scotia and most folks who are diagnosed with cancer are regularly making trips to and from Halifax. Those gas bills add up. For those who are able to afford a hotel room, it is still an issue, because hotel bills add up very quickly. We are thankful to have incredible institutions like The Lodge That Gives in our province. However, it is unreasonable in a community like mine, where the median income is just a shade over $20,000 a year, to expect people of those means, people who are going to be living on a pittance after their benefits, to afford the cost of travelling to and from the city, to stay in a hotel or wherever they can find a place. Frankly, they are usually not an environment that is best for their recovery.

By supporting the motion, we will have the information we need to confirm the right path forward is to extend EI sickness benefits so people can actually draw on the benefits of the fund they have paid into. In 2019, in Canada, it is not right to be better off to be fired than to get cancer. I will not give up on this until this change is implemented in law.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to this motion this evening. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on Motion No. 201, which seeks to extend the EI benefits for those experiencing sickness and disability caused by sickness.

The motion proposes a valuable examination of a program that many Canadians rely on during very challenging times. As members of the House will know, the employment insurance program was initiated to offer temporary financial assistance to unemployed workers. It helps workers to bridge the financial gap between jobs and ensures that people are able to stand on their own two feet during seasons of transition or change.

One of the special benefits that the EI program provided was the sickness benefit, and it does still provide it. Those who are unable to work due to sickness or injury can turn to EI when their circumstances keep them from working. As it stands now, individuals unable to work because of sickness or injury who would otherwise be available to work could be eligible to receive a maximum of 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits. The purpose of this is to give people time to get better, making sure that they are able to restore their health so that they can go back to work healthy.

It makes sense to have a safety net in place for Canadians who are sick and injured. Even when we have not experienced long-term illness or injury ourselves, chances are we know someone, whether a family member, friend or co-worker, who has. Missing work as a result of situations like this can be taxing and take a personal toll. Beyond that, it can leave individuals in a financial lurch too. I have experienced sickness both in my family and in my circle of friendship.

I was recently reading a Global News report which said that half of all Canadians are $200 away from not being able to pay their bills. Part of what the motion proposes is to also eliminate the two-week waiting period for those experiencing sickness or injury. I think that is a tremendous measure. When I think of the statistic that half of Canadians are $200 away from not being able to pay their hydro bill or buy groceries or prescription drugs, that is a very sobering thought.

Illness and injury do not respect anyone. They can happen at any time. When something like that happens, I think we have to have measures in place that people can depend on to get them through that difficult time. We know that if people have to worry about their finances when they are sick, it adds to the sickness and injury. It actually decreases their chance for a speedier recovery. It adds that extra stress, which sometimes the body just cannot handle. This is precisely why EI programs exist: to help lessen the toll on our fellow citizens who are facing tough times.

As policy-makers, it is up to us to make sure that this system serves Canadians the way it was intended to and that it is sustainable for future generations of workers. This means finding exactly the right balance between the needs of employees and employers. It means ensuring responsible government management of the program today and also down the road.

In 2006, the member for Sydney—Victoria introduced Bill C-288, an act to amend the employment insurance act regarding benefits for illness, injury or quarantine. His legislation proposed to extend the maximum period for benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks. In 2011, a former member of the House introduced Bill C-291, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act regarding the waiting period and maximum special benefits. This legislation also proposed to extend the maximum duration of employment insurance for sickness to 50 weeks from 15 weeks, as well as to eliminate the requirement of the two-week waiting period prior to receiving sickness benefits.

It was during the more recent iteration, known as Bill C-291, that the Parliamentary Budget Officer took a look at what this new maximum would mean in terms of dollars. The PBO determined that the estimated cost would have been up to $1.1 billion for the year 2009-10. Broken down, there was about $200 million for the elimination of the two-week waiting period and around $900 million for the extension of benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks. This figure was a static cost estimate, and so potential behavioural responses to these changes were not factored in.

The PBO's report further noted that if the bill had been implemented in 2009-10, total sickness benefit payments would have been approximately 100% higher than they were at the time. As stated in the report, given the fact that the “Employment Insurance program is financed by the collection of EI premiums from employers and employees...any increase in EI expenditures would require an equivalent increase in EI premium insurance revenues.” This would be in order for the program to remain self-funding.

This is, of course, an important consideration for the long-term sustainability of the EI program that we must keep in mind as we proceed with this study.

In the June 2016 report of HUMA entitled “Exploring the Impact of Recent Changes to Employment Insurance and Ways to Improve Access to the Program”, recommendation number 7 states:

The Committee recommends that the federal government explore increasing the maximum number of weeks of employment insurance sickness benefits.

While the official opposition wrote a dissenting report to address some important concerns with the contents of the main report, the fact of the matter is that the key idea behind Motion No. 201 has been laid out previously. Several times parliamentarians have seen the need to address this issue in the EI program.

Sickness benefits cost the EI system $1.6 billion in 2017. We have also seen a trend since 2015 of a greater demand for sickness benefits.

The government noted in its response to the HUMA June 2016 report:

The EI sickness benefit is designed to provide temporary income support for short-term absences from the labour force due to illness, injury or quarantine. While the 15 weeks of benefits appear adequate for the majority of workers, some claimants do exhaust their sickness benefits and stakeholders often request an extension in the case of more serious illnesses. In 2014/2015, on average, claimants of the EI sickness benefit collected 10 weeks of benefits and 34.8% used all of the 15 weeks available to them. The EI sickness benefit complements a range of other supports that are available for workers with longer-term illnesses, including benefits offered through employer-sponsored group insurance plans, private coverage held by individuals and long-term disability benefits available under the Canada Pension Plan and provincial and territorial programs. Improvements to the sickness benefit including potential extension of the maximum duration would require careful consideration of the interactions with other supports, impacts on employers, and would be expected to have a significant cost implication, with resulting premium rate increases.

With these realities before us, there is ample reason to take stock of the situation and lay out recommendations for the best path forward. There are many moving parts when it comes to EI sickness benefits that we ought to take note of throughout our work.

I appreciate the work of the member for Sydney—Victoria for facilitating this conversation with this motion. We have certainly seen this issue considered in various forms over the past years, but when we are talking about a program that supports Canadians, it is important for all of us to be engaged in these discussions. I will be supporting this motion because this is a conversation worth having, recognizing that we must be responsible stewards of the EI program to make sure it continues to serve Canadians well now and into the future. Conservatives understand that when individuals are facing challenges like longer-term illness or injury, they need support.

On this side of the House, I know members are always open to exploring ways that government programming puts people first. That is why members of our Conservative caucus have been championing initiatives that focus on government being more compassionate and responsive to the needs of Canadians.

In our 2015 economic action plan, our previous Conservative government extended compassionate care for the care of terminally ill loved ones from six weeks to six months. These benefits, provided through the EI program, help support individuals temporarily away from work to care for a sick family member with a significant risk of death. Our party has always been committed to helping families receive the support they need as they care for loved ones, especially at end of life, and we backed that up with meaningful action.

Now in opposition, Conservatives continue to champion initiatives such as the opportunity for workers with disabilities act, introduced by the member for Carleton, to ensure that disabled Canadians never lose more in benefits and taxation than they gain as a result of work. Unfortunately, a majority of Liberal MPs voted against this bill before it was even studied.

The member for Calgary Shepard has brought forward Bill C-399 to improve access to the disability tax credit to help ensure that all Canadians living with a disability receive the benefits they deserve and are entitled to. I hope all members of this House will support that common-sense initiative as well.

The member for Banff—Airdrie brought forward Motion No. 110 to determine ways for government to be more sensitive to parents who have suffered the loss of an infant child and to improve the level of support for grieving parents. I was pleased to see this motion considered in-depth by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and I look forward to the committee's report.

These are examples that reflect the passion of our official opposition benches for putting people before government. It is why we are open to studying how we can better a key government program in a way that meets Canadians' needs. I hope all members here will agree that the conversation that Motion No. 201 proposes is one worth having.

I know that as opposition members we are always very sensitive about cost implications and further taxation. This could incur another payroll tax, but it could be one that is worth incurring.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Motion No. 201, moved by our friend and colleague from Sydney—Victoria.

As members know, the motion seeks to direct the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to undertake a study with two specific goals in mind: one, to analyze the possibility and practicality of extending the maximum number of weeks of employment insurance sick benefits for those with long-term illnesses; and two, to present its report to the House no later than six months from the adoption of this motion.

Many Canadians have to deal with illness. For some, it lasts a week a or two, for others it can linger for weeks, months, even years.

Either way, it is very stressful for the sick and their families. Fighting an illness is hard enough without adding the extra stress of financial limitations.

In many cases, the person who is sick has to miss work to get treatment. In some cases, it goes even further and the person is simply unable to work. This leads to a significant drop in income and even a complete loss of income. It is important to improve the employment insurance sick leave benefits program so that the 35% of claimants who run out of benefits before they are able to return to work have the time to recover with greater peace of mind.

I battled cancer myself in 2012, and that fight lasted longer than 15 weeks, so I truly understand that, between the surgeries, chemotherapy or radiation treatments, recovery and doctors appointments, patients may not have the luxury of finding the strength to worry about their finances, let alone hold down a job.

I know what a difference increasing the maximum number of weeks of EI sick benefits can make to people dealing with a long-term illness and to their families. Not only would it help patients focus on getting better, but it would also help relieve some of the psychological stress they must face.

That is why I support the initiative of my colleague, the member for Sydney—Victoria, which calls on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to examine the possibility and practicality of extending the maximum number of weeks of employment insurance sick benefits for those with long term illnesses.

We can help Canadians who have to grapple with the financial stress associated with a medical condition they did not ask for. We can also make a difference for their families.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan will have seven minutes to complete his comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.

The time provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

The Environment

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the debate we just heard, about benefits for people with serious illnesses, reminds me that just yesterday, we lost, to cancer, Paul Dewar, the former MP for Ottawa Centre. There have already been some wonderful tributes in this House. I would just add that I had the honour of volunteering on his first election campaign and saw first-hand what a great person he was. He was also a great parliamentarian. If he were here, he would probably encourage me to get on with the adjournment debate.

On that note, I would remind the House that the question that prompted these adjournment proceedings was about the carbon emissions from cannabis production. Growing cannabis indoors, under bright lights, is extremely energy intensive. Academic research has concluded that cannabis production in the United States emits about as much carbon as three million cars.

The first part of my question was to ask the government whether it could provide those kinds of statistics for our country. Of course, we might speculate that indoor heating and lighting might require even more energy in Canada than they do south of the border. On the other hand, electricity in Canada is a bit less carbon intensive, on average. Rather than speculate, it would be nice to see some actual data. I know the government prides itself on evidence-based policy. I am hoping this evening that we will hear some actual numbers on how much carbon is emitted through cannabis production in our country.

Today I noticed that Statistics Canada released its national cannabis survey, which contained a great deal of data about the sector. There was some good information, but there was nothing about the associated carbon emissions. I am hoping the parliamentary secretary will be able to help us out on that.

Beyond quantifying the level of carbon emissions from cannabis production, what we really want is that the government take action to limit and minimize those emissions. One of the strongest arguments in favour of legalizing cannabis is that it gives the opportunity to regulate the sector. I would like to know what actions the government has taken to try to minimize the carbon emissions from cannabis production through regulation.

I would note that businesses are clamouring to get licences to be allowed to produce cannabis. It strikes me that it should be possible to make those licences conditional upon their committing to produce the cannabis in an environmentally friendly way. Licensing requirements might be one tool. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary will speak to other tools that could be used.

I would just note that through legalization, the government is effectively setting up an entirely new industry of cannabis production, and setting up a new industry is really a golden opportunity to make sure that the industry is structured in a sustainable way. I think it is important for the government to get this right. It is rare that the government has this opportunity to launch a new industry and have so much influence over how it is going to be set up.

I am really keen to hear from the parliamentary secretary what the government has done and is doing to minimize the amount cannabis production adds to Canada's greenhouse gas emissions.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his tribute to Paul Dewar, whose loss I also mourn today.

Our government has taken a responsible approach to cannabis that includes legalizing, strictly regulating and restricting access to cannabis in order to get profits out of the hands of criminals and cannabis out of the hands of youth.

As it relates to our climate action, our government is taking leadership at home and abroad. We are taking concrete steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support clean growth and build climate-resilient infrastructure. In addition to being among the first countries to sign and ratify the Paris Agreement, Canada is following through on its Paris commitments by implementing a national plan to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 and to build resilience to the impacts of climate change.

We have a climate change plan. The pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change is the first climate change plan in Canada's history to include collective and individual commitments by federal, provincial and territorial governments. Our plan has more than 50 concrete measures, including a pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution and new policies, programs and regulations to reduce emissions in every sector of the economy, build resilience to the impacts of climate change, foster clean technology solutions, and create good jobs that contribute to a strong economy.

A key pillar of the framework is putting a price on carbon pollution. When pollution is not free, people and businesses are motivated to pollute less. Our analysis found that carbon pollution pricing in Canada will reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 50 million to 60 million tonnes by 2022. That is equivalent to closing more than 30 coal-fired electricity plants.

In the provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick, the federal backstop carbon pricing system will be in place to protect the environment and spur innovation. Any direct proceeds collected will go directly back to people in these provinces. Households will receive a climate action incentive, which will give most families more than they pay under the new system. Funds will also be given to the provinces' schools, hospitals, businesses and indigenous communities to, for example, help them become more energy efficient and reduce emissions, helping Canadians save even more money and improve our local economies.

The framework also contains important additional actions to reduce emissions across all sectors of the economy, including phasing out coal-fired power plants, developing new building codes and regulating methane emissions. We are also protecting and enhancing carbon sequestration in our forests and in our agricultural sectors as well as supporting clean technology and innovation.

We have covered a lot of ground since launching the pan-Canadian framework, and we are just starting to see its results.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for providing what I think was a very good overview of the government's general policies for trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but what I was hoping to do in this evening's adjournment debate was really drill down into what the government is doing or could be doing to minimize the emissions from cannabis production specifically. I am sure it is a small part of total emissions for the country, but it is an area over which the government has quite a bit of influence during this period of legalization.

I appreciate that the government might have been caught off guard by this rather esoteric question when I first asked it back in October, but I would ask the parliamentary secretary, in her final minute, to provide a little more information, if possible, about what specifically the government is doing to address carbon emissions from cannabis production.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a great deal of effort continues to be devoted to implementing our climate plan and reducing emissions. We have also established robust reporting and oversight mechanisms to track and drive implementation of the pan-Canadian framework, including annual reports to first ministers and Canadians. The second annual synthesis report on the status of the pan-Canadian framework implementation was published in December 2018.

Our government is committed to transparency for Canadians as we continue to take steps toward meeting our Paris Agreement targets.

Justice

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening about a topic that came to light just recently again in my area.

There was a crime being committed in a rural area, and there were a number of local people who happened to find out about it. There were shots fired in the air, not at the perpetrator of the crime, but in the air, which stopped the criminal. Eventually the RCMP showed up and arrested him. Initially the RCMP thanked the local citizens for helping them capture this person. Of course, days later, the RCMP started saying that they did not want people to be vigilantes and that it was their business to take care of it.

This is an ongoing issue. The RCMP have attempted to establish some crime groups in the area to break up some of these criminal organizations, but they tend to be closer to the major centres of Edmonton or Calgary.

There was a constituent I met the last week I was home working with constituents. He discovered someone breaking in and stealing his vehicle, while using a stolen vehicle. His wife had gone to work, thankfully. He happened to own a plane. He contacted the RCMP and said that he was going to go up and fly around to see where the stolen vehicle had gone. The RCMP said, “Great, let us know.” The man followed it and was able to get a licence plate number, with technology. That is how he found out that the vehicle was stolen.

The criminals went to another place and broke into another home, where there was a single person home, a woman. He found out later that they stole her purse and keys, and off they went. She came out chasing them. They could see this from the plane. Again, the criminals almost ran over her. Then they proceeded to another area. By this time, the plane had followed them for two hours. The response from the RCMP was that it was dangerous to chase them. It was very frustrating.

People in rural areas are very angry. That is why there was that incident recently where local people shot guns in the air. That did stop a criminal in the act he was committing.

The RCMP is frustrated. The other part of it, as the RCMP will say, is that people are just going through a revolving door in the justice system. If they are caught, they are charged. The RCMP will tell people to keep their keys or check their vehicles, because on their way out the door, these criminals will just steal another car to get out of there.

The revolving door for these continuous crimes is really a problem in my area in rural Alberta. The public safety committee did a crime task force report on it. It is a real problem in the sense that people lack trust. When people do not have trust, they resort to other means. The last thing we want to see is vigilantism and people taking their own guns out.

This is a real problem. We need more of a response from the government in the sense of how people can deal with it through resources for the police or the justice system. We need this type of crime dealt with and dealt with soon, before we have a more serious incident involving a homeowner or vehicle owner in rural Alberta.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Bow River's intervention today, but I would like to remind him there are significant crimes happening across this country that really are more serious than property crimes. There are crimes against people happening every day, as well as crimes against women.

Originally, this question came out of the case of Tanya Campbell-Losier, which took place in Brooks, Alberta. These people continue to endure the pain of this woman's loss. While I think we are making some huge headway on this, it is very important not to forget the people who were involved in these kinds of crimes across the country.

I know people are there for the people of Brooks, Alberta, and I know they want to make sure they know they are comforted and supported, but there really is not any comfort to be found in jurisdictional issues and processes and procedures of criminal law. However, in the context of the discussion in Parliament, it is important to be clear. That is part of our role here.

The offender in that particular case is a provincial offender who was incarcerated in an Alberta provincial prison. When he pleaded guilty to manslaughter and received his sentence last spring, it was pursuant to the exact same Criminal Code provisions that were in place under the Harper government. Nothing had changed. When he was granted day parole in the fall, it was pursuant to the exact same criteria in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that were in place under the Harper government. There had been no changes.

Again, that is obviously cold comfort to Tanya's loved ones. They do not want us pointing partisan fingers. They want us to make the system better.

There is a legitimate question to come to this government: What is this government doing to protect women from intimate partner violence and to hold perpetrators accountable for their crimes? Here is the answer. We have introduced Bill C-75, which would strengthen the way the criminal justice system deals with intimate partner violence by allowing for longer sentences, reversing the onus at bail hearings for repeat offenders and broadening the definition to include not just spouses but dating partners and former partners.

We have invested over $200 million to prevent gender-based violence and to support survivors and to deal with the scourge of violence against women. We are providing safe options to women in abusive relationships by devoting a third of the $40-billion national housing strategy to projects for women, girls and their families fleeing violence. This also helps maintain 7,000 shelter spaces.

Of course none of that brings Tanya back, but it will help more women from suffering her fate. Once again, my deepest condolences to her family and friends, and the community of Brooks, Alberta, whom I am sure continue to miss her very much.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned Bill C-75, and I would agree with part of it. However, many of those offences have been downgraded, almost 60 of them, and when the suggestion is not to take property crimes seriously, that statement of hers will ring loudly for a long time in my riding and create anger. If someone has been a victim of property crime, that is a tragic piece.

When she speaks of Bill C-75, which is a slap on the wrist for many offences on property, people become very angry. This is a challenge. Rural crime is still a challenge and it needs to be resolved.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that crime against property is something that hurts people but so is crime against people. The original question had to do with crime against people and it should not be diverted to property crimes.

This is an important issue. We need to change the justice system to hold guilty parties accountable. There is no doubt about it, and that also includes making sure that victims and their families get the support they need.

We have a correctional system that is world class when it comes to safe and effective rehabilitation. It means giving the police the resources they need to protect our communities.

There are so many factors that need to be taken into account and these are the things that we have been working on very hard for the last three years. I hope that we can come together to advance these objectives so that we have fewer victims of crime, whether it is property crime or crime against a person.

Transport

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the discussion I am initiating tonight arises from a question I asked the Prime Minister before Christmas, a question about government responses to a series of sulphuric acid spills on the roads in and around Trail, British Columbia.

Teck Resources operates a very large smelter in Trail, one of the largest lead-zinc smelters in the world. One of the by-products of that operation is sulphuric acid, which it sells to the U.S. It has to be transported from the smelter. It is trucked to a nearby rail siding about 16 kilometres away to be put on trains. Until recently, that trucking was done by Westcan Bulk Transport.

On April 10, 2018, about 220 litres of sulphuric acid leaked onto southbound Highway 3B from the intersection of Highways 22 and 3B to the Quirk Siding Reload Centre in Waneta, about 16 kilometres away. Emergency responders were on the scene at 9:30 and cleanup was completed by 2 p.m.

On May 23, about 70 litres of sulphuric acid leaked onto much the same area, but a shorter distance, only about six kilometres. Emergency responders were on the scene at 8 p.m. and had cleaned it up by 11:15.

Following this spill, Westcan Bulk Transport was suspended as the transporter and Trimac Transportation took over transporting the acid. According to Westcan Group of Companies, initial findings indicated the cause was a gasket failure on the trailer unit and was unrelated to the release that occurred on April 10.

There was a very minor spill on September 22, where only about one cup of acid leaked at the reload centre and that was not very significant. The other two spills were very significant.

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia reported it had received about 4,200 claims from drivers whose cars were damaged in the April and May acid spills. Over 400 vehicles were written off, including the regional district's main fire truck, a brand new fire truck worth about $1 million, and a fire command vehicle. On October 10, ICBC filed a notice of civil claim to recover the amounts paid out and it listed, as part of the negligent parties, the trucking company and drivers, International Raw Materials, Teck Resources and the regional district, the City of Trail and the Province of B.C.

The regional district and the fire department have a number of concerns. They are obviously concerned about being listed in this litigation, and they are obviously concerned about the loss of their trucks. They are concerned about how far away the nearest Transport Canada office is. They have the following questions for Transport Canada: Is Transport Canada investigating these acid spills in Trail? What enforcement actions have they taken in regard to the spills? Why was the first and largest spill not even reported to Transport Canada?

Finally, they have heard that provincial staff that do commercial inspections relating to dangerous goods have been cut back through attrition and that part of this cutback relates to reduced federal funding. They would like to know what the plan is to assist communities that need this level of expertise when transportation of dangerous goods incidents happen in their communities.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member of Parliament for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for raising this important issue and for strongly advocating continuing improvement to our dangerous goods operations.

We remain committed to taking all the appropriate safety actions to enhance public safety during the transport of dangerous goods. I would like to assure the member that Transport Canada has a rigorous and robust dangerous goods regulatory framework and oversight program in place, which includes monitoring the safety of dangerous goods operations.

The department operates the Canadian transport emergency centre. First responders and shippers can contact the centre at any time for expert emergency response advice and technical information to help with handling dangerous goods incidents.

The safe transport of dangerous goods is a shared responsibility among industry, provincial and territorial governments, and the Government of Canada. The provinces and territories work in concert with Transport Canada to enforce the transportation of dangerous goods requirements on the highway. Transport Canada also conducts regulatory compliance inspections in other modes of transport, including marine and air, and leads in the development of dangerous goods regulations in the transportation sector. Where non-compliance is identified, various enforcement actions can be taken, up to and including prosecution.

Incidents by road involving dangerous goods often fall under provincial jurisdiction. In the case of the events in Trail, the Ministry of Transportation conducted an evaluation of all aspects that fall under its jurisdiction and will share its findings with Transport Canada once that investigation is complete.

In addition, Transport Canada conducted extensive follow-up actions to see if there were any issues with the transport operations of dangerous goods, in particular, sulphuric acid in Trail. The results of that follow-up will be shared with safety partners.

The department met with Westcan Bulk Transport, International Raw Materials, Teck's Trail Operations, the fire department, as well as the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to discuss the incidents. Further, Westcan Bulk Transport, who was contracted by International Raw Materials to transport the liquid, has since been suspended as a carrier. International Raw Materials has since contracted the company Trimac to carry out delivery of this product.

Transport Canada inspectors conducted a follow-up meeting with the company involved to ensure that all regulations were being followed. This includes verifying driver training, reviewing the required shipping documents and inspecting the damaged tanks.

We will never hesitate to take the necessary actions to ensure the safety of transportation of dangerous goods on our roads.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for her detailed reply. She mentioned the Canadian transport emergency centre, which companies are required to report these incidents to. I have looked into the reasons for when they have to report. It would seem that both these incidents would have qualified, yet it was only notified in the second instance and not in the much larger first instance. I am hoping that gaps like that will be fixed because of these unfortunate and serious events.

I want to reiterate how concerned the people of Trail and the surrounding area are about this. A lot of them have lost their vehicles. Even if they get some money back from the insurance company, many people cannot afford to buy a new vehicle. Some people are driving vehicles that may be unsafe because they do not want to bring them in for inspection in case they are seized for being unsafe and they have to buy a new vehicle. Therefore, it is a serious issue.

As I said, the regional governments want answers to these questions so that they can feel comfortable about the services they are providing. When serious issues like this happen, they want to make sure they are doing the right thing. They are relying on Transport Canada for that.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to continuing to improve the transportation of dangerous goods for Canadians, and those improvements to an already rigorous and robust transportation of dangerous goods regulatory framework and oversight program are important.

At Transport Canada, the oversight activities include monitoring dangerous goods operations; enforcing compliance with rules, regulations and standards through audits and inspections; taking appropriate enforcement actions as required; and working with our provincial and territorial counterparts.

We take incidents involving dangerous goods seriously, and follow-up actions have been conducted to determine if there were any further issues with the transportation of dangerous goods, in particular sulphuric acid, in Trail, British Columbia.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:01 p.m.)