Madam Speaker, to begin with, I would like to reassure the people of my riding. They are not just concerned about employment insurance sickness benefits. They are also concerned about the infamous spring gap that many of them will have to deal with in March. I want to reassure my constituents that I will listen to them and will continue to work hard so that the special EI needs of people in the regions are heard. I will not give up. That is for sure.
In my riding, as in many other ridings in Quebec, employment insurance is key to worker retention, as I was explaining to our colleagues. We cannot claim to be calling for such action without promising the workers in question that they will benefit from EI measures that are fair and adapted to both a temporary lack of work and certain health realities.
Obviously, the Bloc Québécois wants to have more autonomy over employment insurance so that we can better adapt it to the reality in Quebec, both its urban centres and its regions. For example, we would like to establish a seasonal worker status. What is more, we would like to implement an insurance process that would give workers who are seriously ill access to income protection insurance that is flexible, appropriate and fair and that would allow them to extend the benefit period based on their health and their doctor's evaluation. Of course, we are not at that point, because we do not have sovereignty over employment insurance, but that is one of our objectives.
We all know that no one wants to be seriously ill. I am choosing my words carefully here, but these situations are determined by fate, just like job losses due to a lack of work. Our request is very simple. We want people who are seriously ill to have comparable insurance to people who lose their jobs because of a lack of work. The cause is the same in both cases, namely fate, or a situation that is completely out of their control.
That term should be added to our considerations so that we can avoid all kinds of comments, analyses, studies and consultations that will just further delay the process for people who need help now, who need help tomorrow.
Let us think about that for a moment. How is it possible that a worker who voluntarily leaves their job to take care of a loved one with a serious illness will receive better EI benefits than the person who is actually ill? It is almost embarrassing.
Émilie Sansfaçon can currently only receive 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits for her serious illness, or only 26 weeks going forward. Her sister and her spouse are entitled to the same benefits, although they are not the ones who are sick. It is fundamentally illogical.
Today, I am calling on the House to apply logic. It is not easy to look Émilie in the eye and tell her that, under the law, she has only 15 weeks to recover, or 26 weeks at most, as the other side of the House is proposing. Émilie is fighting for her life, for her young children, and is struggling with difficult treatments all while fighting for what we are fighting for here today, when she should be dedicating all of her time to recovering. She has taken up this cause because she knows that she is not alone and that there will be others.
While we are debating this issue in the House, Émilie is looking at her calendar to determine when the easiest time will be between her chemotherapy treatments so she can organize another fundraiser to raise enough money to get her through the next month. This is what she is doing while we talk here and while some members push for more studies. Émilie is looking for a time in her calendar when she will not be too nauseated or too exhausted to organize a fundraiser so her friends can help her pay her bills.
I challenge any member of the House to look her in the eye and tell her that we did nothing or that we did only part of what we should have done.
That is not the issue. Today, we can work together to show the people of Quebec and Canada that, when people are sick and lacking funds, we can come to a consensus that will serve the voters who elected us.
Who here can prove that 15 weeks at 50% of a person's salary is enough to cover their needs and the needs of their children, if applicable, for the duration of a treatment if that involves 26 biweekly chemotherapy treatments, as in Émilie's case?
Math is not my strong suit, but, if my calculations are correct, that adds up to 52 weeks. For those who have suggested that 50 weeks is a random number, that is a concrete example of why it is realistic. It will take Émilie 52 weeks to get well. Would anyone in the House like to try showing me mathematically how Émilie can manage financially with 15 weeks or 26 weeks? If anyone can prove that to me, I urge them to rise now, and I will give them the floor.
We are elected legislators. We have the right and the duty to consider and implement fair and equitable laws without letting sentimentality or compassion impede our judgment. However, I sincerely believe that no one is indifferent when it comes to employment insurance for people who have a serious illness, such as cancer in particular. I have not seen anyone who is indifferent. We all know that we cannot put aside the fundamentally human aspect of this subject. So be it.
For once, let us add a little compassion to this exercise. Let us draw on our better selves and vote in favour of the Bloc Québécois motion that calls for fairness and justice for workers who meet all the insurability criteria and who are perfectly entitled to those benefits.
Let us not forget that the people who are currently sick and their employers paid into the employment insurance fund. It is their money. They participated in the collective contribution exercise so that anyone in need can get the appropriate employment insurance sickness benefits, that is to say, a minimum of 50 weeks of benefits.
Since taxpayers are the ones who contribute to the employment insurance fund, it is self-sustaining, particularly in a situation of almost full employment. This will have no real financial impact on the public purse.
Given that this request has been raised repeatedly in the past, that the Employment Insurance Act requires several adjustments adapted to today's realities, and that it has not changed in 40 years, I am appealing to the deep conscience of every member of the House to help Émilie Sansfaçon and Marie-Hélène Dubé, as well as every Michel, Yvon, Stéphane, Olivier, Julie, Violette, Fernand, Gérald, Pierrette, my uncle, my aunt, and my neighbour weather the storm of illness and hope for the peace of mind that will aid in their recovery.
All of this because we in the House had the wonderful idea of setting our differences aside and voting in favour of a motion that will enable them to live every moment, good or bad, in serenity, fairness and justice.