Debates of May 7th, 2019

Opposition Motion—Natural Resources

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. We are going to try to get one more question in before we finish up the remaining 10 minutes.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Châteauguay—Lacolle.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers are very proud of our leadership on climate change. For one thing, we have a carbon exchange, but people want us to do much more. We are very happy with the electric vehicle rebate program.

Can my colleague tell us more about that program, which is now available to all Canadians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the government has a number of different initiatives related to the environment. My colleague and friend is right to point out that, in the province of Quebec, for example, those purchasing an electric vehicle are eligible for a Quebec grant. This will now be complemented by a federal grant.

Interestingly, last Saturday someone came up to me at the local McDonald's to ask whether Tesla vehicles qualify. I believe there is a story noting that Tesla is now reducing the price of one of its cars so that it can meet our requirement in order to get the incentive that is being provided to Canadians to be able to purchase an electric car.

Helping the environment is not just one thing. There is a multitude of different things that government can do to make a difference. To me, one of the most significant things it can do is to put a price on pollution, and I suspect we will hear a lot more on this in the months and weeks ahead.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Drummond.

I want to touch on a couple of things. I am going to focus some of my remarks on some of the consumer pricing issues that we have with regard to gasoline and fuel that have not been touched on enough in this debate. Outside of building pipelines and the related infrastructure issues, there are things we can do that could bring greater accountability for consumers and address the rip-off taking place at the pumps, where there is not enough accountability. I am going to lay out three different things.

There are also a couple of things I want to talk about in the context of the previous discussion we had about the Philippines. We had a so-called good-news story from the parliamentary secretary that a nation we have a strong historic relationship with had to threaten to go to war because over 100 contaminated containers of human waste and other trash was sent to their shores and stayed there.

The Minister of Environment promised to take care of it but never did anything, making that another broken Liberal promise. The Liberals finally decided to act on it, but ironically, just as an update, there are 69 containers left. Canada has said that we will finally take them back. Apparently the good news is that we are actually going to take them back. However, there is a complication, because some of them are infested with termites.

That is apparently a good-news story from the parliamentary secretary. I am not surprised, because the Liberals have had very few environmental victories that are reality.

I asked a question today in question period and never got a response. It was about Ojibway Shores, where we have over 100 endangered species, and the Liberal government has yet to act to protect that area after the community fought to save it from being bulldozed to the ground. It would take a simple transfer of that land to the Minister of Environment, who will not answer or do anything on it to this day. Real action, a simple process could take place to create a national park, but more importantly, it could protect over 100 endangered species on the Great Lakes. The Liberals have refused to do that. It is a transfer on paper, from one department to the next, and the government has refused to do it. That is unacceptable.

I will also touch briefly on the issue the parliamentary secretary just raised with regard to the incentive for electric vehicles that has been put in place. First and foremost, my riding of Windsor West, which has been producing the minivan for generations, was left off the original list. The only Canadian-built electric vehicle was left off the Liberal list, pointing everybody away from domestic manufacturing despite the company and the workers, most importantly, providing taxpayer money through taxes day in and day out and making sure that they produce award-winning world-class products. They were left off the list by the government.

Second, the Liberals will not even respond to the fact that the incentive program is not even matching the one that was just killed in Ontario. The Minister of Innovation came to Windsor basically saying that it was going to be put on the list and that people should not worry about it. Then he criticized Doug Ford, just like the parliamentary secretary did, for killing the Ontario program. Doug Ford's program was $10,000 and up to $14,000 for those vehicles. The parliamentary secretary should know that his government will not even match that.

The minister came to Windsor. The fact is that this is the only Canadian-built electric vehicle and it is multi-passenger. It would get more vehicles off the road than smaller vehicles, but it is not going to get an incentive based on that. It is basically going to get the $5,000, after we actually had to bring the Liberals in, kicking and screaming, to fix it. Ironically, this is a plant that the Prime Minister toured less than a year ago.

My advice to anyone who has an auto plant is they should not have the Prime Minister tour it, because obviously it will not do any good. He will be on the assembly line for a photo op, and later he will say to the workers that there is $300 million for incentives for vehicles with low emissions and for electric vehicles, but by the way, we do not want domestic ones, the ones from Canadian auto workers; we want them from overseas, from Mexico and China and the United States.

Those things the Liberals are doing right now are unacceptable. There are practical, real things that could help. An important point that we could discuss today is how we want to reduce dependency on the oil and gas sector. This incentive program that the government has put in place is not sufficient for that. Ironically, the Liberals want to get up and criticize others, but they will not even meet the makers at the table and actually lead by example. It is unacceptable.

There are a couple of things that are interesting with respect to this motion. One of the reasons I cannot support it is that it does nothing for consumer accountability. The motion simply reads, “That the House call on the government to stop raising the price of gas by clearing the way for pipelines and eliminating the carbon tax on fuel.” It does nothing to reverse some of the attempts in this House over the past decades to bring some consumer accountability to the price at the pump as well as knowledge of the product consumers are buying at the pump, and more importantly, of the gouging that can take place. There have been several attempts in this chamber.

When I came here back in 2002, I learned of some of the good work of the Liberal member Dan McTeague, who did a lot of work on the industry committee. We had hearings and several proposals, including from the Paul Martin administration, to bring in some changes for consumer accountability and tracking. It promised that and never delivered. It was another broken promise.

I want to highlight a couple that are important, because they are still happening today and were not resolved. We can do some of those things today by bringing greater accountability at the pump.

The first one that took place was a Conservative bill, Bill C-14, which was an act to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act. The late Jack Layton looked into this. I would give credit to the late former minister Jim Prentice. It is sad that I am talking about two individuals who have passed from this place and our country. What they did was bring to light the fact that Canadians are being overcharged at the pump by tens of millions of dollars. At one point, from 1999, when they looked at some of those things, to a decade later, there was approximately $240 million worth of so-called phantom gas. That is gas one pays for at the pump that is not measured by the flow metre correctly and a person is charged for it. At any given time, an average of 4% of these pumps do not work properly. If they are off by 0.5% to 1.5% with regard to the charges, they must be fixed within 14 days, which can add up. The sad thing is that the Conservatives privatized the inspections of those, and we have fewer inspections. Usually they are done every two years. I would say that if we want to give rebates to consumers more quickly and bring greater accountability and confidence regarding the price of what they are paying for, we should increase those inspections to once a year.

Another thing we can do is create an oil and gas ombudsman's office. That is something that was recommended at committee and in Parliament going back to 2002. As I mentioned, it was subsequently one of the things the Paul Martin administration was supposed to bring in. It promised to do so, and it did not. What it would do is investigate complaints independently. It would also have the ability to gather information. One of the key elements we are missing in Canada on accountability, versus the United States, is that the U.S. has the Department of Energy's weekly petroleum status report, which gives weekly updates on refining oil and petroleum production. That alone would create more transparency and accountability so that we would be able to track our gasoline to the pump at that time and know whether there was gouging taking place. The office would have some teeth and would be able to investigate that properly. It would produce and maintain data. It would also make sure that big oil companies allowed the office of the ombudsman to provide objective answers free from industry bias so that we could have more consumer confidence.

The third thing we can do is have a petroleum monitoring agency. We looked at the price spikes with regard to Katrina and other types of natural disasters, human disasters, trade issues and different production problems. We could have a greater impact there.

In conclusion, it is about more than just what is in the future with regard to these things. There are also things we can enact right now to ensure consumer accountability and more money in people's pockets right now.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, actually, Paul Martin did bring in an oil and gas office. I am not sure if it was the exact description that the member liked. It was done for the exact reasons that he stated, such as investigating to ensure that everything is on a level playing field. However, the Conservatives closed that office.

Could the member comment on the closing of that operation? I agree with him; it was a good idea and it had been started.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was in the process of being created, but it was never actually fulfilled.

Second, the deal we made with Paul Martin was a Jack Layton deal with regard to the $4.6 billion. Paul Martin never actually followed through on the money for students and student debt that was part of that arrangement. Unfortunately, what happened was that some of the work that was done was talked about but was not put into full application, which is similar to what happened with a lot of other work. That is why Paul Martin was known as the “ditherer” when he was prime minister, because things never came to fruition or they took too long to do so.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Windsor West for his excellent speech.

I want to come back to what was said earlier about the Liberals and the Conservatives. There has been a lot of talk about fighting climate change during this debate. I would remind members that scientists have said that we must not allow temperatures to increase by more than 1.5°C or 2°C, preferably 1.5°C, in order to limit dangerous climate change.

To do that, scientists said we should set a target of reducing emissions by 45% by 2030, not the weak 30% target set by Stephen Harper and adopted by the Liberals. If the Liberals are serious, then why are they settling for Stephen Harper's weak 30% target, which will do nothing to limit climate change?

Why do they continue to subsidize the fossil fuel industry to the tune of $1.5 billion or $1.7 billion a year? Why did they buy a pipeline that costs $4.3 billion a year? How does this help fight climate change or lower prices at the pump? It is no help at all. On the contrary, it hinders the fight against climate change and does nothing to lower prices at the pump.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, why have the Liberals not acted on anything? Quite frankly, from what I have seen over the last few years, the government has been pretty much lazy. The Liberals have had a significant majority in the House for the last four years, and what we have now seen is a rush to get routine legislation through this chamber through omnibus bills and larger pieces of legislation, which was not even necessary when they had support and working groups from all parties on different things. It is unfortunate, because it is a missed opportunity in many respects.

As far as the subsidies are concerned, this is a good example of the lack of political will necessary to redirect those funds to better and greener opportunities. What is even worse than buying the pipeline and the continued subsidies is the fact that we are in massive deficits right now. The Liberals have done this. We are borrowing money and paying interest on that.

This was one of the concerns and criticisms I had of the previous Conservative government when it brought in the HST, which should not be forgotten, because that was actually an issue with gas pricing before. The fact of the matter is that until we pay that off, the borrowed money incurs interest.

I had the Library of Parliament, which is independent of Parliament, do an economic analysis of the situation, and it is billions and billions of dollars more of borrowed money. Therefore, the real cost of the pipeline is more significant than the purchase price. It is as if we borrowed the money on a credit card, and the credit card has significant rates.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate and giving the floor to the hon. member for Drummond, I must inform him that he has just four minutes remaining for his speech.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to speak to the motion before us today. This afternoon, we have heard a lot about combatting climate change, even though the motion is primarily about pipelines and oil. Nevertheless, it was interesting to see how the Conservatives wanted to present this motion. They want more pipelines. They want to bring back energy east in Quebec. That pipeline was shut down because it was not financially or environmentally viable and because it does not contribute to the fight against climate change. The pipeline also did not have public support, yet the Conservatives want to bring it back.

The Conservatives are kind of funny. They are like firefighters who start fires. They say that they are going to present a plan to combat climate change, yet today they mostly talked about pipelines. Strangely enough, I do not understand how more pipelines will help us combat climate change. I think they would do the opposite.

Most members of Parliament are not scientists. Some of us are, but we do not carry out studies on climate change on a daily basis. However, hundreds of scientists around the world did carry out climate change studies this year and last year. They say that climate action is necessary to avert disaster.

Just this year, the floods in Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick reminded us just how important climate action is and showed us the very real impact of climate change. Drummondville, in Drummond, went through multiple freeze-thaw cycles, which was very hard on the roads. The potholes are unlike anything we have seen before. This shows just how serious climate change is.

Scientists are telling us the opposite of what the Conservatives are saying. The first thing to do is put a price on carbon, but not the way the Liberals did. They decided it should not apply to the major greenhouse gas emitters because that would have an impact on the economy. Come on. It takes pressure on the economy for it to make the transition to a green, low-carbon economy. It is important that everyone, including major emitters, pay a price on carbon. That was one Liberal mistake.

Still on the topic of carbon pricing, scientists are also saying that the oil and gas industry must be integrated into our climate policies. The Liberals did exactly the opposite by purchasing a pipeline for $4.3 billion, which runs directly counter to the fight against climate change. On top of that, they continue to subsidize pipelines to the tune of over $1 billion. Subsidies to the fossil fuel industry are worth between $1.5 billion and $1.7 billion annually. This flies in the face of any efforts to combat climate change.

Scientists tell us we need an ambitious target. Unfortunately, our target is the weak goal of reducing our emissions by 30% by 2030. What is more, we will not achieve it. The commissioner of the environment says that it will take us hundreds of years to achieve that target. None of this makes sense. The Liberals went to Paris to sign the Paris Agreement on behalf of Canadians, but the feeble 30% target they cribbed from Stephen Harper will not enable them to keep the promise they made when they signed the agreement. For that, Canada would have to reduce its GHG emissions by at least 45% by 2030.

Building more pipelines is not going to help us fight climate change. We need an ambitious plan, and the NDP will soon be unveiling just such a plan.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Wednesday, May 8, 2019, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

I see the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on his feet, perhaps on a point of interest to the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if you were to canvass the House, I believe you would likely find support to have unanimous consent to call it 5:30 at this time so we could begin Private Members' Business.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from February 7 consideration of the motion.

Employment Insurance

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always wonderful to see you in the chair, especially when we are talking about issues that really matter to constituents, because I know how much you care about these issues.

Today I will be speaking to Motion No. 201. It is looking at an extension of employment insurance benefits for sickness. This is an important study, and I am very excited to see this motion put forward.

As a constituency consultant for 11 years, I dealt many times with constituents who, unfortunately, had exhausted their employment insurance sickness benefits. What I found many times was that there was a large gap between the time they applied for employment insurance and the Canada pension plan disability. The Canada pension plan, in many cases, would start at usually four months. However, many people did not understand that they might be off for that period of time.

Being able to have this study would be fantastic, because it would give us, as members of Parliament, time to look at some of these key issues. Today I will be discussing some of the things that are important, including why we need to study this as well as some of the costing. It needs to be looked at through two prongs.

I would like to thank the member for Sydney—Victoria for putting this forward. I know that this was debated in the House in 2011 and 2012, but since that period of time, we have seen a large increase in the number of people in Canada taking employment insurance sickness benefits. For 38.9% of people who have been on EI benefits for sickness, their benefits have been exhausted.

Over this time, I have also had the honour to serve as the Conservative shadow minister for families, children and social development. I have had the opportunity to meet with many different organizations, not-for-profits and health organizations that come to us to discuss the needs of their patients and the clients they are representing.

One that comes to mind is the MS Society. For a number of years, we have talked about some of the issues patients have had to consider. A lot of times, the symptoms are episodic. Although this employment insurance study may be looking at whether we should be extending the benefits, we also will have the opportunity to discuss more than that. This motion is looking at extending EI benefits to up to 50 weeks for sickness. Within this conversation, we would be able to discuss some of the things that are needed for people who have MS, who have cancer and who have hip replacements and knee replacements.

Because of that, last night I looked over some of the rehabilitation times. I was looking at what happens if someone has a hip replacement or a knee replacement. What is the opportunity to return to work? The average time is four to six weeks before people can return to a desk job, and sometimes it is much longer. We also have to understand that some people are not able to return to work at a desk job. For instance, for truck drivers who have to get in and out and people working on a farm or in food processing or anything that is physically straining, the opportunity to take more time off is not just a necessity but is doctor's orders. A lot of times patients are told that they have to take up to six months off. Within the first 15 weeks, people would only be able to receive sickness benefits. Unfortunately, at that time, there would be nothing else.

Many people would wonder at that time if they could apply for Canada pension plan disability. For Canada pension plan disability, people need to be deemed unable to work, and that has to be over a one-year period. If someone tells his or her employer that he or she is sick, has been hurt or has a broken bone and will not be able to return to work for eight months, the Canada pension plan is not going to be an option. Sometimes sick benefits would be the only option for those people.

There are many things we also need to look at. It cannot just be government benefits. We also have to recognize that there are short-term and long-term disability plans that are available through private planners. Through the workplace, there are also many other pensions available. A lot of the time these benefits will work in conjunction with each other.

It is very important that we look at why this needs to be studied. The last time this was changed from 15 weeks was in 1971, and I believe that is probably when it was introduced as EI benefits for sick benefits, so it has been 15 weeks since 1971. Being 48 and born in 1971 myself, I think there have been a lot of changes in 48 years, so this is a great time for the human resources and skills development committee to study these things.

I recognize that a lot of studies have been done and that there have been requests. Recently there was a response to the HUMA committee from the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. He indicated that the committee needs to explore impacts for employers and the cost implications relating to the increase in sickness benefits.

This discussion has already started at the HUMA committee, and we have heard from many different parties as to what we are looking at.

Let me go back to the MS Society. When people come to our office, many times they will tell us that they are able to work one day but not the next, so we need to have the opportunity to talk about what their needs are as well. They too need to have some sort of financial plan. Many of them are able to work, but it just may not be all the time.

When looking at issues like that, we need to make sure what the impacts will be on both the employer and the employee, as well as what the cost of the program will be. Luckily, earlier this spring we received a PBO report. Information was received by the PBO knowing that the study was going to be done. The report shows that the cost of this program would be $1.1 billion in 2020 and would be expected to grow by $1.3 billion by 2025.

I find those statistics really important. If we are going to extend this program, we have to look at what the cost will be to taxpayers and employers. We think it would probably be about $1.62 per every $100 earned through employment. We have to see at the end of the day if this is best for Canada's bottom line, and more importantly, if this is best for the bottom line of a family budget of somebody who is sick.

Let us compare benefits. There are many different benefits available through the employment insurance program.

The first one I can think of is the family caregiver benefit. The family caregiver benefit is available to parents or anyone who has a child under the age of 18. Parents are able to take some weeks off to care for their children if they are in critical or serious need.

There is also the caregiver for adults benefit. This benefit is for family members to assist other family members over the age of 18.

One benefit that I think is very important is the compassionate care benefit. I was really proud when our government expanded the number of weeks to receive this benefit. This benefit recognizes that 26 weeks is an appropriate amount of time when a loved one is going to pass away. This benefit allows that loved one to be provided with psychological and mental support from family members during a time of need.

Those 26 weeks were set by our former government, and I think it is fantastic to know that family can be there at the end of life and know that benefits are available. The family has to coordinate the benefits, however. The entire family cannot take 26 weeks each, but they can coordinate those 26 weeks so that each family member can care for a loved one.

I would like to see some changes made to this, but it needs to be a whole-of-government approach. We need to look at it. We need to know what all 338 members of Parliament think about it. We also need to hear from physicians. We need to know what they think when it comes to people going back to work. We have to look at stress loads. We need to look at what is best for a person who has just had a massive heart attack or open-heart surgery. We need to make sure that somebody looking to return to work is in good health and does not need to take time off because he or she returned to work too soon.

What are some of the things that we should be considering if somebody has had a knee replacement or a hip replacement? Is the person able to go back to full-time work? Is he or she able to go back to part-time work? Could he or she participate in a work-sharing project? There are lots of different opportunities to discuss.

It is important to have members come to the HUMA committee and discuss some of these issues. It is also great to have not-for-profit organizations and many health organizations come along as well. It is important to hear from members of the Cancer Society, the MS Society, the Diabetes Association and a variety of these organizations to find out what works best for Canadians and what families need. I fully support having this conversation. Everybody needs to be at the table.

We recognize that coming back from surgery can be very difficult. I had surgery in January and I wanted to come back to work immediately. Unfortunately, my body, my mind and my family said absolutely not, and when I did come back to work a little too soon, I paid the piper, as my father would say. I did not feel well. We need to make sure that everybody has the opportunity to make sure that their health is taken care of first.

I am really excited about the opportunity to study this at human resources and skills development committee. This is a great opportunity for all Canadians to ask what we have done in the last 48 years and what can we do to improve the system.

I thank the member for Sydney—Victoria for putting this motion forward.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am also honoured to rise to speak to this motion.

I am somewhat ambivalent. I am both happy and unhappy to talk about this motion. I am happy because it is important to talk about how the 15 weeks of sickness benefits offered by the EI program are not enough for people to recover. It does not make any sense. It does not make any sense for a person who is ill to have to return to work or be left penniless for weeks when that time is up.

I am also extremely disappointed to have to talk about this motion, which calls for an examination of the situation, when this government has been in office for four years and has still not done anything about this. It really bothers me because, behind this motion, there are people who are suffering. We are talking about people who have been diagnosed with cancer or a mental health problem or people who have to have knee or neck surgery, for example. They sometimes have to be off work for nearly a year. Employment insurance gives them 15 weeks of sickness benefits, but after that, they are left with nothing.

These are people who have sought help and done everything they can, but they are still left with nothing. They come to see us at our offices. Many people have come to ask me how this could be and where that bill came from. One woman by the name of Marie-Hélène Dubé has been working on this issue for a long time. She even worked with our late NDP leader, Jack Layton. She was in this situation herself, and she started a campaign called “15 Weeks to Heal is Not Enough!”. She has worked extremely hard. She has made people aware of this problem and collected 600,000 signatures in 10 years. This has been going on for a long time.

It bothers me that a motion was moved today to study this matter in committee. We do not need to move a motion to study the situation, we need to introduce a bill to resolve it. This problem dates back to 1971. This petition has been signed by 600,000 people.

I continued this fight with constituents. Some of them spoke to me about this problem. For example, Cynthia Lafontaine, a young mother from Drummond, had her life turned upside down when she was diagnosed with spinal cord cancer. She had to undergo surgery on her spinal cord and had to relearn just about everything. She had to learn how to talk and walk again. She had to work on regaining her fine motor skills. She had to do all this, and it took her much more than 15 weeks. After 15 weeks, she was no longer receiving EI sick benefits. She was getting nothing. In addition to being sick, she had no money and was financially stressed. When people are sick, they do not need financial stress on top of everything else.

This issue dates back to 1973, and she has been fighting for this for about a decade. It seems like this should have been resolved by now. It is not as though the Liberals are waking up today after four years and realizing that there is a problem. For years now, my colleagues from Churchill—Keewatinook Aski and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot have been telling us loud and clear in the House and at committee that something has to be done to move this forward.

What we hear is that the committee is sweeping this under the rug and claiming that it will do it later. Four years later, with the election right around the corner, the government is saying that it is going to study this. That is really disappointing, especially when we think about people like Cynthia Lafontaine and Marie-Hélène Dubé.

I organized a talk on this subject a few months ago because I really wanted to remind people how important and inhumane this situation is. As I was saying earlier, we are not talking about EI sickness benefits, we are talking about human situations. We are talking about people who have experienced this, people who are living in completely unacceptable situations. We need to fix those situations. EI normally provides about 45 weeks of benefits. The same should be given in cases of serious illness.

On the ground, in Drummond, if anyone wants to speak with me or sign a petition, I invite them to come and see me. I really care about this matter, because this problem is affecting real people, and it needs to be fixed.

Speaking of Liberals waking up, I have to say that the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development has been aware of this for some time. In 2016, he told Radio-Canada that he was listening and was aware of the issue. He said the government would continue to ensure that the system serves those who need it most and that his department would be reviewing the cut-off.

That was in 2016. It is now 2019, but nothing has been done. The best the Liberals can do is move a motion to examine this in committee. Is that really the best they can do?

It is not like nothing has been done about this yet. A November 2017 report recommended that the Liberal government close the gaps in the social safety net for people coping with illness. That was a clear finding. The report recommended finding solutions quickly for those who exhaust their 15 weeks of sickness benefits. That study was done in 2017.

Another government survey found that 48% of EI recipients who claim federal sickness benefits are unable to go back to work at the end of the 15 weeks. Half of those who receive EI sickness benefits are unable to return to work.

The Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology has already recommended increasing the maximum number of weeks of benefits to 50 weeks.

The 15-week EI program has been around since 1971. Over the past decade, Marie-Hélène Dubé has made the rounds of all the media outlets, from Tout le monde en parle to all the morning shows. She has toured Quebec. She has been to several ridings and met with many MPs. She even took photos with them. A study was done, and a report was tabled in 2017. That report noted that 15 weeks was not enough. Then there was another study in the Senate. After all that time, after four years of a Liberal government, all we are being offered is a committee study.

As I said, 15 weeks is not enough time to heal. People should be entitled to 50 weeks of benefits. Nearly half the people who use federal sickness benefits are unable to return to work when the benefits run out. Unfortunately, as we know, the incidence of cancer is on the rise. At some point in their lives, nearly one in two Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer, a disease that unfortunately requires treatment that takes around 52 weeks.

This motion is not enough, and I am calling on the Liberal government to introduce a bill so that this issue can be resolved before the election is called.

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

I am pleased to rise today to speak on Motion No. 201 and its fundamental importance to Canadians. This motion is sponsored by my colleague, the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria. I would like to congratulate him and thank him for his work.

While Canada has always striven to promote health care and its progression, there is still a lot of work to be done in terms of the employment insurance to which all Canadian employees are entitled.

According to Statistics Canada, three out of five Canadians over the age of 20 have a chronic disease, and four out of five Canadians are at risk of developing one. These chronic diseases include cancer and heart disease in particular. The most striking thing about these diseases is that although we currently consider them to be incurable, they are certainly treatable.

This alarming finding would therefore suggest that measures are in place to treat sick people and promote their return to society once their treatment has ended. However, as the member for Sydney—Victoria has pointed out, EI sick benefits are only paid for 15 weeks to eligible claimants, and the fact is that 15 weeks is not enough in most cases.

I think the member for Sydney—Victoria has a vision for an even better Canada, and the answers are there. This motion reaffirms that vision by urging the government to act. Since 2009, there have been seven different bills seeking to extend these 15 weeks of benefits. Some of those bills got as far as second reading, but none were ever passed. I share the member’s vision and believe that we can make a difference by adopting this perspective.

Approving the motion on employment insurance will result in important and necessary changes that will allow Canadians to return to their workplaces and resume their activities after receiving treatment and having had enough time to recover, because most interventions to treat long-term illnesses can be invasive and require a longer recovery period.

I would like to add that before immigrating to Canada and completing my studies in translation, I worked as a registered nurse in Lebanon during the civil war. I witnessed horrific scenes. I treated many patients who, in addition to dealing with the common ills that afflict us in western countries, had to live in an environment where they were under constant threat of violence. I saw everything from the most debilitating infections to the unimaginable suffering of victims of physical and psychological violence.

These people had one thing in common: the time they needed to recover. Based on what I have seen and my personal experience, recovery is not about the time it takes for a wound to heal. Rather, it is about the time it takes for a person to regain enough physical and mental strength to return to the work they were doing before their diagnosis or treatment. Frankly, I do not think 15 weeks is enough time to recover from treatments such as radiation therapy or chemotherapy, where patients may need several months or even a year to regain enough strength to carry out their daily activities. I can speak to that because I spent five years working in an oncology ward at the hospital in Lebanon.

While EI sick benefits provide adequate coverage for most claimants, about 35% exhaust their benefits before returning to work. This means that these claimants needed more than 15 weeks to recover, but simply could not afford it.

That is the sad reality of the EI sick benefit program. First of all, I believe that when they are not given the time they need to recover, people may relapse. For example, depression and psychological stress can significantly affect a patient's ability to recover from cardiovascular disease.

According to the Mental Health Commission of Canada, about 25% to 50% of people with chronic conditions who do not receive specific support will also experience depression.

People who suffer from depression following a heart attack are at greater risk of having a second heart attack. Indeed, people with depression are more likely to develop poor lifestyle habits, such as excessive alcohol consumption, poor nutrition and lack of physical activity, which can affect their recovery from the original illness. Indeed, depression can undermine the motivation and determination that patients need to complete their treatment.

In addition, it is important to point out that these are not people on the cusp of retirement. Most of them are young adults who still have a lot to offer Canadian society in terms of its progress.

According to the HealthPartners’ Chronic Disease and Mental Health Report, 21.4% of Canada’s working population has a chronic illness, with our youth being the hardest hit.

One study found that in any given year, 28% of people aged 20 to 29 will experience a mental illness. One in two workers has a mental illness by the age of 40. In addition, 500,000 Canadians are absent from work every day due to depression. This absenteeism is a major problem because it costs our national economy more than $51 billion annually. Our government must invest in these young Canadians. They will give back to Canada by being active in the job market and thereby contributing to the country’s economy.

It is well known that most people living with chronic disease receive care outside of hospitals, relying on family and community for their medical needs. A Statistics Canada survey shows that 20% of caregivers looking after someone with a chronic illness reported depression as a result of their responsibilities.

Not all claimants will necessarily be eligible for the extended benefit period for their recovery and treatment. Since decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, this will be a subjective procedure, and claimants will therefore only receive benefits for the number of weeks required for their recovery. As such, the government's duty will be to provide the necessary assistance to patients and their families by extending the benefit period to enable patients to fully recover from their illness and not develop additional ones.

In conclusion, I strongly support this motion because I recognize and understand the impact it can have on helping Canadians who may need a longer recovery period than the current 15 weeks and who will experience financial stress when they realize that there will be no more EI sick benefits if they take a longer period of leave.

Motion No. 201 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. It therefore seems obvious that Motion No. 201 must be allowed to continue.

Imagine the relief of all those families who can only watch helplessly as their loved ones slowly fade away. This is not an unattainable goal, and it could be achieved more quickly than we think. After all, we have an obligation to help Canadians so that they, in turn, can contribute to productivity growth in Canada.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to stand up and speak once again on behalf of my constituents.

I would like to thank the member for Sydney—Victoria for bringing this motion before the House. I know that his heart is in the right place when I read the motion, but I have to express my frustration and indeed that of the New Democratic Party at another half measure by this Liberal government. When it comes to the issue of employment insurance sickness benefits, this is not a new issue. This has been debated for several years over several parliaments, and we know that enacting such a measure in legislation would have a very real and tangible benefit for some of the most vulnerable Canadians. That is simply a fact.

For the benefit of my constituents back home, I am going to take some time to read the motion. Motion No. 201 reads as follows:

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.

Once again, even though the member for Sydney—Victoria has the right idea with this motion, instead of a practical action from the Liberal government, we are again left with a motion for study, which is problematic in two elements. The Liberals have had a majority government and are now three and a half years into this 42nd Parliament. They have had the time to enact this measure. They have the numbers and the votes necessary to pass such a measure in legislation.

However, the fact is that Motion No. 201 is coming before us in its final hour of debate right now, in this 42nd Parliament, which is rapidly running out of runway. Therefore, there is no realistic chance for the standing committee to do the proper study and have an adequate amount of time to report its findings back to the House.

I want to highlight why this is so important. We know that employment insurance sickness benefits currently have a maximum payable of 15 weeks. We also know that about four out of 10 applicants are maxing out those benefits. This is problematic, because the next federal benefits that could conceivably come into play if one's illness is of quite a long duration is CPP disability. However, with CPP disability, one has to meet two requirements: One's physical or mental disability or illness has to be severe, and it has to be prolonged. One has to hit those two things.

From my days working as a caseworker and intervening on behalf of constituents, I saw that “prolonged” usually means a year or more. What I saw when I was working as a constituency assistant, and indeed what my office continues to see, is that we have constituents who have an illness that may last in the range of 30 weeks or so. They max out on 15 weeks of sickness benefits, but they do not have the timeline necessary to go on to the next step.

This causes an incredible amount of stress and frustration on the part of those who are dealing with health issues, which we know is not good for their recovery. It is very problematic.

I got into politics because I was sick and tired of sitting across the table when I was doing casework, seeing people who were at their wits' end because either their benefits had run out or they could not find enough money to pay the rent or put good food on the table. I could link a lot of those issues straight back to this place and the policies and legislation enacted here in the House of Commons, or the lack thereof. If only Motion No. 201 had been a private member's bill, we could actually have done something.

We most certainly support extending EI benefits. If the member for Sydney—Victoria wants a template, he needs to look no further than my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam, who in this 42nd Parliament has Bill C-288 at first reading. It would amend the Employment Insurance Act to provide for up to 50 weeks of benefits for persons suffering from health issues.

Yes, that will probably add some cost, but the thing about health issues is that no one knows when they are going to get sick. No one knows when these kinds of health problems can arise, but boy, do people appreciate the safety nets that are there when they need them.

Not everyone is going to need the 50 weeks, but they would have the peace of mind of knowing that they could potentially go up to 50 weeks if they needed to. Of course, along the way they would need to submit the proper medical documentation to show that they were still eligible .

This is not just in this Parliament. We have Bill C-288 here in the 42nd Parliament, but my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam had a similar bill in the previous Parliament, the 41st.

Former member of parliament Dawn Black, of the NDP, had it in the 40th Parliament and in the 39th Parliament. There are numerous examples, and they are not only New Democrats. I believe there were a number of Liberal and Bloc Québécois members of Parliament who all tackled this issue. There was a recent petition by Marie-Hélène Dubé that collected 600,000 signatures, so the will is there. The obvious sense of it is there, and we have numerous examples in previous Parliaments.

Again, all we have before us is a motion to direct this to a committee for further study, yet the government has all the tools at its disposal and a commanding presence in the legislature, and I would argue that amending this part of the EI Act is it is probably the lowest of the low-hanging fruit.

As I said in the beginning, think of the number of benefits we could extend to people and just do that one measure. Four out of 10 Canadians are already maxing it out.

I will be voting in favour of Motion No. 201, but I want it clearly understood that a golden opportunity was missed yet again, especially with a majority government, and I want to convey my frustration and that of my party to constituents back home.

They know I have been raising issues on employment insurance for quite some time. I have, as all MPs do, an active case file. There are constituents in my riding who are seeing their EI sickness benefits cut off at 15 weeks. Some of them have tried to go back to work, which has made them even sicker. When I see the stress and the strain of attempting to do that, I do not know why we have not taken the time to tackle this issue yet.

I want that frustration clearly underlined, and I certainly hope that the member for Sydney—Victoria and his colleagues are listening. We could have had this done, but we certainly do not have a lot of time left in this 42nd Parliament.

Again, I appreciate this time to rise in this place and give my thoughts on the matter.

With that, I will conclude.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria has the right of reply.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank all the MPs who have come into this chamber to speak to and support this very important motion, not only this evening but the previous times we have debated it in the House. As this may be my last time speaking to this motion, I would like to thank the different organizations that have helped us along the way to get where we are today. I speak of the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Canadian Cancer Society, the MS Society and many others that helped put this together and stuck with us all the way through. They showed us many examples of what they are facing with respect to the people they represent.

Also, I have to thank my staff. I have been elected for 19 years. I remember talking to one of my first staffers, Darlene Morrison. I asked her about the most disturbing thing she had seen in our office. She said it was people getting sick and not having enough EI to help them get through it. That is when our journey started, back when Darlene told me that. Along the way, over those 19 years, my staff and I have been keeping at this. We brought a private member's bill to the House on it before, and we are not giving up. I am glad our colleagues are moving this forward.

Since 2015, our government has done a lot with respect to EI changes, and we see it in our communities. We have made updates to the regular employment insurance benefits, and we now have parental benefits and the compassionate care benefits, all of which help the regular citizens in this country through tough times. The problem is that, thus far, sickness benefits have not been targeted for any major changes, making them the only benefits that have not received a makeover. Sickness benefits have remained at 15 weeks. That is all people are getting. As my colleague mentioned, this has not changed since 1971, when the EI system came into place.

In our region, the Atlantic region, people need 600 insurable hours to qualify for sickness benefits. However, people can work 420 hours and get employment insurance for 26 weeks. Therefore, that balance is not there.

There is another thing that is very important and has been recognized by my other colleagues. When people are diagnosed with an illness, such as prostate or breast cancer, the doctor will refer them for treatment. However, it could take 10 or 15 weeks before they even start their treatment. All of a sudden, they are 10 or 15 weeks in and just starting their treatment and, guess what, there is no money coming in. A lot of people are just a payment away from their cars and their homes, and their assets are in jeopardy. Not only that, but, as was mentioned by some of my colleagues, the stress on those people at that moment, when they are unable to make payments on their bills, really impedes their recovery, as doctors would tell us, on top of their bodies going through enough due to the treatments.

It seems that every person who is approved for EI sick benefits will get the full 15 weeks. This has to be looked at, because people get the same 15 weeks whether they have broken bones, stress or cancer. Therefore, there should be a real makeover of this, to look at how many weeks should apply to different illnesses. Perhaps the weeks approved could be tailored to a doctor's recommendation regarding the severity of the illness or injury. For example, a person with a broken leg may need only eight weeks, whereas a person with cancer may need 30 weeks. That all makes sense. However, many people are being forced to return to work when they are not well, which is causing increased stress and further contributing to their illness.

Many of my constituents, and those of my colleagues, have talked about this serious situation. Therefore, we have to make some changes. We have to look at this and study it. This was implemented in the 1970s, when most people who fell sick with cancer or had a stroke died. They are not dying now, because we have better medicines and a better medical system. Therefore, we can help them get through it so they can become productive citizens. Other countries are helping them do it. It is an economic benefit to get these people back into the workforce.

A healthy nation is a good working nation. I hope my colleagues in this House will support my motion this evening when it comes to the vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

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