Debates of Feb. 18th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Special Employment Insurance sickness benefits

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have listened a great deal to many of the Bloc members, and a couple of things have surfaced.

One example is the situation where those members have been factually incorrect. For example, I commented on the statement that seasonal workers were entitled to 50 weeks.

Here is another example that I would like to share with the member. The members have said that 23% of those who receive the benefits get better within that 15-week period. It is almost three times that number.

Having factual information is of great benefit during this type of a debate. I wonder if my colleague and friend from the Bloc could reflect on the importance that we have the facts and that we provide them in this debate.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe I provided a number of specific facts.

For example, I mentioned the GDP of 15 or so countries that invest four, five, six or seven times more than we do in employment insurance. That is one example.

With respect to the 50 weeks my colleagues mentioned, I do not see the point of debating that again. It has been said.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are a couple things to keep in mind in this debate. For a period of time, the Paul Martin administration took $54 billion of employment insurance and put the money into general revenue. It is a fact that employment insurance is not really the government's money; it comes from employees and employers and we are just custodians of that.

My question is with regard to the extension of benefits. We have seen the improvement to maternity leave, going from one year to one and a half years. People can take that one and a half years, but their benefits are then stretched over the extra time. They are not actually increased, and that is a sad thing. When somebody is off for a longer period of time, not only is it good for the child but also for the employee, because that time allows someone to have a stable job for much longer and his or her skills get better. Therefore, it is better for our economy, too.

I would ask the member to comment on the fact that if we extend these benefits, the training, expertise and stability in the workforce are also improved, which makes us more competitive as a nation. It is very much an improvement for our economy in that way, too.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague's statement. The NDP and the Bloc are similar in many ways, especially on humanist issues.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured and pleased to speak to the motion moved by the leader of the Bloc Québécois, which is now before the House under business of supply.

This motion is as clear as can be and deserves the unanimous support of all parties in the House. The government should be guided by logic and compassion on this matter, and it should set aside partisan imperatives that detract from this extremely important issue. Let me therefore say that I sincerely hope we will come together to adopt this motion, making it the first step toward a major change to the Employment Insurance Act.

The wording of the motion is very simple:

That the House call on the government to increase the special Employment Insurance sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks in the upcoming budget in order to support people with serious illnesses, such as cancer.

As we all know, the government is currently holding extensive pre-budget consultations aimed at informing the Minister of Finance's reflections on the important budget speech he will deliver in the House before too long. This important exercise includes its share of issues that are fundamental to the well-being of the population. It is time for the government to seize this opportunity and show some compassion for people with serious illnesses, particularly cancer. I could build a very detailed and convincing argument in that regard and I am confident that common sense would prevail amongst the members of all parties.

The motion we are debating is quite simple. EI has always been at the core of the concerns and progressive positions developed by the Bloc Québécois over the years. The Bloc Québécois has always fought to improve and enhance the EI system, including creating an independent fund, eliminating the black hole, improving access to regular benefits, ending the classification of unemployed workers based on the claims submitted to the program and, obviously, increasing all types of benefits.

Right now, anyone who has been around a person diagnosed with cancer can see that the special EI benefits for serious illnesses are baffling and absurd. No one in the House can say they have never faced this difficult, stressful reality.

The current system is blatantly unfair to different categories of EI recipients. Some colleagues have already raised concerns or questions about our proposal to extend the existing benefits system from 15 to 50 weeks. I do not think it could get any simpler than that. It is a matter of social justice and equity.

Speaking of equity, I would like to talk about a problem faced by one of my constituents with a serious illness. She was diagnosed with two autoimmune diseases. Her life was turned upside down in a matter of six months. She was entitled to 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits, but that was not enough. After the 15 weeks were up, she ended up on social assistance. That is completely unacceptable. She was battling her illnesses and also battling the system to get benefits so that she could pay her rent and grocery bills. This situation is unacceptable.

According to an in-depth study on the issue by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the 15 weeks of special EI sickness benefits were originally based on survey data from the Department of Employment and Social Development. According to those data, roughly 23% of claimants return to work immediately following the 15 weeks of benefits. Of the remaining claimants, 82% would take an additional 16 weeks off or more before returning to work. This is a serious situation, as everyone will agree. These people have to struggle not only with illness, but also with immense stress due to financial insecurity. Living on a reduced income is stressful for anyone, but for someone who is also facing a life-threatening health problem, the stress can become unbearable.

As its name suggests, the employment insurance system provides insurance of a certain income threshold in the event of job loss or forced absence due to extraordinary circumstances.

Since the creation of the special sickness benefits program nearly 50 years ago, the labour market as a whole has evolved significantly. The day-to-day reality of millions of individuals has transformed, but very little has changed in terms of the urgent challenge of achieving work-life balance.

Currently, a person who is laid off is entitled to regular employment insurance benefits. The birth or arrival of a child also triggers maternity leave or parental leave. However, if a worker finds out they have a serious illness that requires frequent or prolonged leave, the current system provides the same number of weeks of benefits as for a worker who has to take leave to recover from a physical injury such as a fracture, which ultimately will not jeopardize their long-term future or general health.

This is where there is a problem with the program, and this results in blatant unfairness for people who only want to get better as quickly as possible. No one wants to be ill. No one wants to go through such a challenging situation. It is unthinkable that anyone would want to to be ill, to be diagnosed with cancer. I keep coming back to cancer, but the situation and the state of mind is the same for any long-term chronic illness. Cancer is a prime example because it affects almost everyone. It is a real tragedy.

This difficult reality means that a person who receives such news already has to deal with the shock, which can take many weeks to internalize. There are immense emotional consequences. It is not difficult to imagine the range of terrible emotions that overwhelm an individual when they receive that kind of diagnosis. This is when the full scope of the problem comes into play as does the compassionate approach long recommended by the Bloc Québécois.

This is not the first time that our party has called for better access to EI benefits for constituents dealing with a serious illness. The Bloc has taken action at least three times in the recent past by introducing bills to overhaul the act and to enhance benefits.

Members may recall Paul Crête fighting tirelessly for this for years and former Bloc Québécois MPs Jean-François Fortin and Robert Carrier picking up where he left off. Right from the beginning of this important debate, the Bloc was equally open to other parties, calling for a non-partisan approach to this crucial issue that would seek only to correct a terrible injustice.

For example, we supported a similar bill sponsored by Denis Coderre when he was in the House. We can all agree that a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then and that this is not a new cause for the Bloc.

Unfortunately, we have always come up against unwillingness on the part of both Liberal and Conservative governments to consider fixing this serious problem. Worse still, recent governments have been influenced by financial considerations, citing budget cuts to justify the unjustifiable. Just imagine the cold heartlessness of that approach when a person's health or very life is at stake. It is abominable, despicable even.

I could also highlight another disappointing aspect of the current program by describing in detail the accessibility of caregiver benefits. There is a huge contradiction in compassionate leave. It is easy to imagine the insecurity and distress that a diagnosis of cancer or severe illness causes to the person's family. That is precisely why the caregiver benefits are an integral part of the benefit program.

The reality is quite different. Comparatively speaking, the benefits for caregivers are currently more advantageous than the framework established for someone who is seriously ill. A caregiver providing end-of-life care can technically receive benefits for longer than the current 15 weeks that patients with cancer or any other serious illness are allowed. How very ironic.

All avenues must be explored, and I would humbly submit that we consider the astronomical surpluses in the employment insurance fund. Everything leads us to believe that a fair balance is within reach. We just need everyone's goodwill in order to achieve it.

I firmly believe that there is a strong spirit of collaboration in this House that the Prime Minister cares deeply about. He has a golden opportunity right in front of him.

For the sake of the sick, we must do the right thing. We must demonstrate compassion and fairness. The House must unanimously pass the motion sponsored by the leader of the Bloc Québecois.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, where I disagree with the Bloc members is they do not seem to recognize that prior to this government there was absolutely nothing happening. No changes had taken place to the benefit and the many things we have been talking about today. Since then, we have seen different reforms that have advanced workers in many ways with respect to employment insurance. On this issue, we are seeing an enhancement from 15 weeks to half a year. That has happened through consultations and working with the different stakeholders. It is a significant change.

Does my friend across the way not agree that maybe the Bloc would have been better off to present a motion to have the issue go to a committee where we could look at all of the different aspects of EI? That way we could look at turning other ideas into reality. If we are to be judged by the last four years, we have been very progressive at making some positive changes for Canada's workers and others.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Enough time has passed. More than seven bills have been introduced in the past. That is completely unacceptable. Why pass this off to a committee? Several avenues have already been explored. We have repeated many times today why we want to pick up the pace and why 26 weeks is wholly inadequate. We want to increase the number of weeks to 50. This needs to be done as quickly as possible.

Too many people are suffering. We need to take action.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was good to hear a couple of names of people who have worked so hard on this issue mentioned in this chamber, for example, Mr. Crête. I worked with him for years. He was very solid on the industry committee with respect to so many consumer issues, as well as this issue. I would like to give a special shout-out to one person who was not mentioned and that is Yvon Godin, the former member for Acadie—Bathurst. He definitely tabled the most bills in this chamber to improve employment insurance and spoke to it often.

What I think we see differently from the government is that this is not the government's money. It is the workers' and employers' money in a relationship to provide good, stable employment.

By moving it in this direction, in many respects, I believe this is going to be of benefit to employers, because they can get more stability for replacement employees during the process as well as have workers come back to work in a better state of mind, because their life and family are taken care of at home. I do not think that should be underestimated.

We should make sure we understand that this decision is not just about an individual person. It is about our overall economy. We would have more productivity and would be better off as a nation because we would have better rules relating to caring for loved ones, especially with an aging society. This is a perfect time for it. We do not need to study it anymore. Cancer does not wait. Illnesses do not wait. These are things we should be doing right away.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I certainly agree with a lot of what he said about the problem we are speaking out about today. A healthy society can help the economy flourish. This can always help employees and employers.

The government holds the purse strings, even though the fund belongs to workers, as we have heard. We know that the workers' fund is currently worth more than $4 billion. This money could be used to lower the cost of the new bill. The money is there, and the fund belongs to workers. We must address this inequity and injustice.

We need to show compassion.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion. The employment insurance program is an important part of Canada's social security net. With every paycheque, Canadian workers have spent years paying into the employment insurance program. Whether it is due to job loss, parental leave or sickness, Canadians who have contributed to this program should have confidence that the program benefits are available to them when they need them.

As legislators we owe it to Canadians to ensure that the EI program is not only fair, flexible and supportive, but that it is also a viable program in the long term. The motion before us today calls special attention to the employment insurance sickness benefits. The current structure of this program provides up to 15 weeks of sickness benefits to eligible employees who are unable to work for medical reasons.

I have no doubt in my mind that every member in this chamber understands the value of this benefit. We have all dealt with it personally, or experienced it through a loved one, or at least known someone who was unable to work because of a serious illness or a medical condition.

We can surely find agreement that when someone is faced with serious illness, the person's focus and energy is better spent on recovery and not worrying about making ends meet. As we have heard in this place, the current 15-week benefit threshold was established in 1971 and almost 50 years later there is certainly merit in reviewing the program.

In the previous Parliament and now again in this Parliament, I have had the privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, better known as the HUMA committee. This committee has the latitude to review the EI sickness benefits program.

In the previous Parliament, in its “Supporting Families After the Loss of a Child” report, the HUMA committee recommended that the government gather data specific to employment insurance sickness benefits used to support bereavement and high-risk pregnancy.

Also, in its “Taking Action: Improving the Lives of Canadians Living with Episodic Disabilities” report, the HUMA committee made specific recommendations to improve the EI program's ability to meet the needs of Canadians living with episodic disabilities and their families. Allowing workers to claim benefits in smaller units, such as hours or days, instead of weeks was just one option that was put forward in this report.

This recommendation shows that there is room to modernize and improve the flexibility of the EI sickness benefit to better support Canadians living with an episodic disability. These two studies, as well as other work done by the HUMA committee, demonstrated the merit of a full review of the EI sickness benefit program.

In fact, in the previous Parliament, on multiple occasions, one of my NDP colleagues moved a motion to that effect. That motion specifically called on the HUMA committee to review the employment insurance sickness benefits as it relates to current program outcomes, the impacts of the current structure and its accessibility. The motion had my support and that of my Conservative colleagues, but it was very unfortunate that on every single occasion the motion was moved, the Liberal members of the committee who had the majority shut down the debate.

Understanding the success and the failures of any program is vital in shaping a better program. We do not have a comprehensive study to lean on today in considering this motion, but maybe we would have if in the previous Parliament my NDP colleague's motion had not been shut down time and time again.

That is why I would strongly support the HUMA committee undertaking a comprehensive review of this program. Equipped with a full review of the EI sickness benefit program, we could help ensure that we make the necessary changes to the program so that the program delivered is in the interests of all Canadians.

Today's motion suggests that a new maximum sickness benefit be set to 50 weeks in the upcoming budget, but there are many considerations to be made in changing this program that are not addressed in this motion. I would note the other proposals that have been made to modernize this program from previous committee reports. It is important that we consider the increased cost to employer and employee premiums.

Despite the sunny portrait that is often painted by the current Liberal government, constituents in my riding are faced with a hard reality. We do not even have to look past the two main economic drivers in my region to understand that reality. Our energy sector is being crushed by the Liberal government, and our farmers and agricultural producers are constantly finding themselves on the losing end of the government's failed policies and failed leadership. Layoffs and unemployment are a real possibility for many of my constituents.

It would be wholly irresponsible to not fully evaluate and understand the impact of increased premiums. We also have to consider that not all Canadians are eligible for EI program benefits. In fact, one-fifth of working Canadians do not qualify for the EI program. They would not benefit from this motion that is proposed today.

This, in turn, raises the question of whether the EI program is the best support system to help Canadians dealing with serious illness. Again, as a member of the HUMA committee, I do hope that we can have the opportunity to review this program, an opportunity to hear from the experts and those who are or who work with those directly affected by this program, so that we can ensure that the EI program continues to be there when Canadians need it, that we are not undermining the fiscal viability of that program, that changes to the program do not have other unintended economic impacts, and, of course, that in reforming the program, we are making the program more fair, flexible and supportive.

I appreciate that today's motion highlights these important issues. It gives us an opportunity to evaluate the EI program in the House, but I do hope we have the opportunity for a more thorough evaluation of it, so that any modernizations to the program are quality modernizations and that we ensure that the EI program works effectively for Canada and all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, when the government allowed for an increase in the CPP benefit, the Conservatives called it a tax. We looked at it as a way to support workers in their retirement, but Conservatives called it a tax.

Now we are looking at allowing for an increase from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. That means there will be an increase in terms of the EI benefits, quite likely.

I am wondering if the member would say that same principle would apply. Does the Conservative Party look at any sort of an increase to EI premiums as being a tax on business?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, before I answer that, we need to back up to the last Parliament. I mentioned two studies. I came to this place only in 2017, in a by-election. I am not even referencing the work that was done before that.

The committee members on HUMA have done a lot of work. They heard from witnesses that there needed to be further studies with recommendations. The “Taking Action: Improving the Lives of Canadians Living with Episodic Disabilities” report suggested claim benefits of smaller units, hours or days instead of just weeks.

Before I can even make a comment on what is being proposed by the government today, we need to back up and do a thorough study on this before we make suggestions.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see you here again.

I thank my colleague for her speech and for her concern about the need to reform the Employment Insurance Act. I agree with her.

There are some aspects of employment insurance that need to be examined in more detail and that may require more attention. Some things have been discussed and have been established for a long time. A number of parties here have been calling for them urgently. That is what we are talking about today.

Right now, many people are suffering financially because they have a serious illness, EI is slow and we are dragging our feet here in the House about a change that we could make quickly and easily without negatively affecting the public purse. I think that we need to consider the fact that this is urgent.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, we want to make sure that these changes, if there are changes to the program, do not have unintended economic impacts.

I think that we should have this sent to the HUMA committee to study it and hear from real people who are dealing with this on the ground. The House could then make recommendations or change what needs to be changed.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question.

We know that, in life, going into space is complicated, beating cancer is complicated and conducting scientific research is complicated. However, improving employment insurance is not complicated.

Why can we not take action right away to make EI more accessible and to give sick people the weeks of benefits they need? It seems to me that that is just common sense.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, we want to make sure that there are no unintended economic impacts by drastically tripling it, going from 15 weeks to 50 weeks, or the 20-some weeks that the government is suggesting.

I think that the committee should be able to look at this. We should be hear from people on the ground and take into account what they have to say.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster for her excellent speech. I sensed a great deal of emotion in her presentation, which is to her credit.

Today we are debating an opposition motion that reads as follows:

That the House call on the government to increase the special Employment Insurance sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks in the upcoming budget in order to support people with serious illnesses, such as cancer.

The aim of this motion is interesting, for I do believe it is important to take care of Canadians who have a serious illness. However, why does it call for 50 weeks? I do not know, and I cannot answer that question.

On February 5, I made a statement in the House reminding members of the need to review the special EI sickness benefits, and gave the example of Émilie Sansfaçon, a constituent of mine who lives in Saint-Augustin. This morning I saw her father sitting in the gallery, facing the Bloc Québécois. He came to listen to what the House of Commons was saying on this matter. Ms. Sansfaçon received two cancer diagnoses in the span of a single year. In a heartfelt plea, she called on all political parties to review the current maximum benefit period of 15 weeks.

During the election campaign, I met with her father, Mr. Sansfaçon, to get his side of the story. I obviously promised to take concrete action to improve things for these Canadians who are diagnosed with a serious illness that forces them to be away from work.

The current employment insurance sickness benefit program was established in 1971. That is nearly 50 years ago. Maybe that is where the 50 weeks the Bloc Québécois is asking for came from: since it has been 50 years, the Bloc is asking for 50 weeks. If it had been 70 years, would they have asked for 70 weeks? I do not know, but I wonder.

Obviously, the legislation needs to change. Ms. Sansfaçon has been very courageous considering she has to deal with this serious illness. As I said in the House on February 5, this young woman, and all Canadians with a serious illness, should have the privilege of focusing on their well-being and the care they need instead of the financial concerns that crop up once the 15 weeks of benefits come to an end.

What is absurd about the 15 weeks of sickness benefits is that chemotherapy treatments last at least six months. That was the case for Ms. Sansfaçon after she was diagnosed with cancer the first time. When her benefits ran out, she had to remortgage her house and she asked her family for financial assistance after exhausting her line of credit.

I don't claim to be a doctor, but according to the medical guidance, a patient should convalesce for three months after having chemotherapy to return to full health. Ms. Sansfaçon had to return to work less than a week after the end of her treatments because she had no other choice. She could no longer cope financially. Even worse, five months later she learned that the cancer had returned and that it was stage four and inoperable, having metastasized to the lungs. She can no longer live without chemotherapy and her days are numbered.

As we all know, this is unfortunately not the only young woman who has or will have to deal with this illness, or I would say this cursed illness.

I will cite the statistics published by the Canadian Cancer Society. According to the 2016 data that was recently published, cancer is the leading cause of death in Canada. It is responsible for 30% of all deaths, compared to 19% caused by heart disease. It is expected that one in two Canadians, or 45% of men and 43% of women, will develop cancer in their lifetimes. One in four Canadians, or 26% of men and 23% of women, is expected to die of cancer.

Thanks to advances in medicine and increasingly effective treatments, it is now possible to cure roughly 60% of cancers. With continuing medical research, this number will undoubtedly increase and treatments will take less and less time.

Right now, the majority of cancers require extended treatments that take more than 15 weeks—not to mention other serious illnesses and medical conditions that require long periods of treatment and recovery. It is appalling how the Liberal government keeps flushing taxpayer money down the drain. It is handing out gifts to Mastercard and Loblaws and buying pipelines. Well, it is not a matter of money anymore. The government needs to take concrete action.

I wonder what happened to the government's compassion. The negative health impacts of stress have been proven. I think it is cruel to create more stress for Canadians who have been or will be diagnosed with a serious illness requiring more that 15 weeks of treatment or recovery. Getting the bad news is stressful, the treatment itself is stressful, and there is financial stress on top of that. In 2020, I think Canada can be there to help these people.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities should take an in-depth look at EI sickness benefits to make sure they meet the needs of Canadians.

Canada and the U.S. have the two least generous systems, with 15 weeks. Let us compare with other countries. Germany, for example, another G7 country, provides 72 weeks of benefits with the possibility of extending for up to 3 years. France has up to 360 days over a non-recurring 3-year period. Italy offers 50% of daily benefits for the first 17 days and 66% thereafter; there is then a 3-day waiting period for a total of 180 eligible days. Japan offers benefits matching two-thirds of standard daily wages for up to 18 months. The United Kingdom does not rely solely on employment insurance. They have another system and two different types of benefits: one based on employer and employee contributions, and another based on revenue and resources. There is no time limit for the payment of revenue-based support benefits.

Here is what I am getting at: Why does the motion mention 50 weeks? I mentioned a few countries, but there are many more examples out there. Other members talked about different systems in other jurisdictions. Why did the Bloc pick 50 weeks?

This is a matter that must be acted on responsibly. We have to take the necessary steps to get the right answers and treat Canadians well. There has to be a will, there has to be an intent and it has to be a priority. The government simply has to be genuinely compassionate and specifically want to help people.

I see my time is running out, so I will skip right to the conclusion. I have questions for my Bloc Québécois colleagues.

What data did they use to come up with 50 weeks, when the Canadian Cancer Society only asked for 26 weeks? Surely the folks at the Canadian Cancer Society deal with seriously ill people on a more regular basis than members of the Bloc. I put more faith in the Canadian Cancer Society.

What solution does the Bloc Québécois have for people who do not qualify for employment insurance? They are Canadians too, and they are also entitled to assistance.

I am perfectly willing to work with the government to find the best system and determine the right number of weeks to support the thousands of Canadians who have been diagnosed with cancer, like Émilie Sansfaçon, who lives in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

In answer to his questions, I would say that this is a matter of fairness. We have already shown that the 50 weeks would give people who are suffering from a serious illness the same rights as workers who lose their jobs. We based our proposal on the findings of a study on this subject with the goal of being fair to everyone.

With regard to compassion for this cause, I would like to remind my colleague that, when the Liberal opposition introduced a bill in this regard, the Conservatives opposed it because it would cost too much.

Once again, I think that we have demonstrated today that there was an employment insurance surplus that could be used to cover these 50 weeks.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford.

Fairness is important. However, the Bloc Québécois is saying that the government must grant 50 weeks so that sick people and workers get the same benefits. I would therefore like to inform the House and those watching on ParlVU that workers get a maximum of 45 weeks depending on what region they live in. Where is this 50 weeks coming from?

If we look at history, we have to go back as far as 1971. There have been Liberal and Conservative governments. There has never ben a Bloc Québécois government so we cannot know what their intentions were. The two parties that have been in power since then moved with the times. Now it is 2020. We cannot change the past, but the people in our Quebec caucus can change the future and really take care of Canadians who need help.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I had this question before with the previous Conservative speaker and I am very much interested in what the Conservative Party's position is on this issue.

For a long time we have been advocating for a review of the EI sickness benefits. We worked with associations like the Canadian Cancer Society, as well as other health groups and stakeholders, and we are now suggesting that we need an increase from 15 weeks to half a year. Does the Conservative Party support that initiative? It would be interesting to know that.

The previous Conservative speaker seemed to imply that it did not and would rather see it go to committee for study. Could the member provide some clarification on the issue?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North.

Increasing the benefit period from 15 weeks to 26 is a step in the right direction. To pick up on the Bloc Québécois's analogy about 26 weeks being like doors and windows, I would say that we need to keep fixing up the rest of the house.

I think fixing up the rest of the house is a great idea, but we need a plan. We need to study the situation, maximize our options and find a solution that will really help Canadians and Quebeckers so we can make sure they are treated properly and have the right number of weeks. We need to think about it and study it.

That said, I would recommend that the government study this in committee and fast-track the process so we can get recommendations by the time the session ends on June 23, 2020.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We have time for a brief question. The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am a little confused by what you just said. I thought you supported your constituents' motion—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. Members must address their remarks to the Chair, not directly to a member.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the reminder.

I was saying that I am somewhat troubled. On the one hand, I get the impression that my colleague supports the Bloc motion that his own constituents support, but on the other hand, he is making comparisons with Europe, talking about the number of weeks and days in relation to a certain number of years.

We are saying that 50 weeks is the maximum, just as there is a maximum for seasonal workers. That is where there seems to be a disconnect. I would like him to explain this inconsistency.