Debates of Feb. 18th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Special Employment Insurance sickness benefits

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, we unfortunately do not have a permanent cure for cancer. As the member stated, I cannot imagine there are more than two degrees of separation before we know somebody who has been affected by cancer.

However, we have made a lot of strides and moved the yardstick forward through a lot of funding. Of course, there is a cost associated with this.

Even though there is a very large cost, would the member acknowledge that the commitment of moving from 15 weeks to 26 weeks is still moving the yardstick forward?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his question. We all recognize that we have moved the yardstick forward.

Let me use an analogy. People are happy when they build a house. First the foundation goes in, and then the walls go up. Installing the doors and windows is like getting 26 weeks of benefits. However, the roof has to be put on to protect the interior of the house. Progress has been made, but the roof still has to be put on.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not really have a question. I just wanted to rise to congratulate my colleague for her very poignant and touching speech. The fact that she lost a friend yesterday and gave a speech on this subject today took a lot of courage and strength, and I congratulate her for it.

I will make a further comment about today's subject. Much has been said about the cost of the proposal we put forward today, but it is important to remind the House that there are surpluses year after year. There are billions in surpluses. This measure would not be that expensive.

As our colleague opposite asked, why cover 26 weeks when it would not cost more to cover 50 weeks? This is about fairness.

That is just a comment I wanted to make in addition to my heartfelt congratulations to my colleague. It was extremely moving and very courageous of her to give this speech today.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.

I thank all members for listening to and reflecting on such an important motion. I hope that members and their families will never need it.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for sharing her time with me and giving me a chance to speak to this important matter. I also thank her for her very touching and poignant speech. She is a tough act to follow.

How many people successfully recover from cancer in 15 weeks? I would also ask the following: How many caregivers stop helping their loved ones or abandon them after 26 weeks? To ask that question is to answer it.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to this important Bloc Québécois motion:

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.

It is just common sense. We need to solve this problem now.

I will structure my speech around three points: my work in the past as a political aide, which taught me certain things; the many cases that we are still seeing in our ridings these days; and, lastly, the impact that this blatant lack of compassion is having on sick people.

First, I was an assistant in a riding office from 2007 to 2009. People who were suffering used to come in in tears because their benefits were running out and they would no longer be getting the money they were entitled to from the plan they had contributed to. From 2009 to 2011, I worked as an assistant on the Hill, where I saw the work that the Bloc Québécois was doing. The Bloc Québécois was already working hard on this important issue at that time.

I recently had the opportunity to talk to a former MP, who reminded me of all the work that was done on this file, making it possible to really bring this and other similar bills to the fore. He even personally worked on helping pregnant women get the employment insurance benefits they deserve when they have to withdraw from the workforce because their job is too risky. In short, the Bloc has always been there speaking out on this issue, and this problem has been going on for far too long.

Second, now that I am an elected official, I recently met with someone who was receiving compassionate care benefits. Let us remember that compassionate care benefits are equivalent to about 55% or 56% of a person's income and do not take into account expenses, such as adaptations to the home, medical equipment or home care workers. In a region like mine, the cost of travel must also be factored into this already long list of expenses. It is the same thing for special sickness benefits. This adds stress and really undermines the recovery of people who just need to take care of themselves.

Third, it is clear that we can measure the effects of inequality in this case. In 2016, the Coalition des Sans-Chemise called on the Liberal government to take its employment insurance reform even further and adapt the EI system to the realities of today's workers. The coalition, which brings together many associations and unions, had launched a post card campaign with the theme “Employment insurance is for everyone”, a theme that still resonates today.

Although the coalition commended the many improvements the Liberals made to the employment insurance system, it wanted to make the government aware of the need to overhaul the program. The coalition also asked for an increase in the number of weeks offered to workers with a serious illness. The spokesperson for the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses, Pierre Céré, pointed out that caregivers can now get 26 weeks of benefits while those who are sick can get only 15 weeks. This is quite the contradiction and quite sad, honestly.

In December, my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly was joined on Parliament Hill by the labour critic and hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville and by Émilie Sansfaçon and Marie-Hélène Dubé, as well as their loved ones. They were calling on the government to take action and change the employment insurance system to ensure that those with a lengthy illness can get the help they are entitled to and need throughout their battle.

Ms. Sansfaçon thought she had beaten cancer, but when she was told that the cancer had returned, she had already exhausted all her weeks of employment insurance. She is not getting any support from the federal government and had to go into debt to deal with her illness.

People need our help when they are facing adversity, not when things are going well. We know what the problem is and we also know how to solve it. There is no point in dragging our feet. We have to fix this now.

The Bloc Québécois decided to take up the demands of this group of citizens and have the federal government expand special EI benefits from 15 to 50 weeks to let the sick battle their illness with dignity. The program has not been enhanced since 1971 despite the demands of many stakeholders. Seven bills have been introduced to solve this problem, but nothing has ever been done.

Émilie Sansfaçon and Marie-Hélène Dubé chose to fight for their lives, their families, for those battling illness, but there is no reason why they should also battle the machinery of government. It is time we gave them some respite and dealt with this issue once and for all.

I experienced a lot of heart-wrenching situations like this when I was an assistant to a member of Parliament from 2007 to 2011, and I am still seeing them in 2020. For quite some time now, I have seen that 15 weeks is not enough time to recover from an illness. Employment insurance must change to allow people to seek treatment with dignity. Again, 15 weeks of benefits is not enough.

As you can read on the Conseil national des chômeurs et des chômeuses website, “The sickness benefit plan has not been changed since 1971, which is a long time ago!” Employment insurance must change and provide better protection for the thousands of people without group or private insurance who will go on to deal with health problems. To fix the situation, the Conseil national des chômeurs et des chômeuses is proposing to increase the sickness benefit period to 50 weeks in order to address cases of serious illness. That is what we are proposing as well.

In closing, I cannot ignore my titles as critic for seniors, status of women and gender equality. This motion targets these groups in particular. For more fairness and less poverty for our vulnerable groups, let us take action. No one should have to choose between medicine, food and a place to live. The question is not whether we will one day be a caregiver or receive care, but when.

[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 often talked about the realization that we have seen a significant increase, based on stakeholders, from 15 weeks to a half-year. We see that as a positive.

Listening to some of the members from the Bloc, there have been some inaccuracies that have been put on the record. I would like some clarification from the member. The Bloc keeps on repeating, inaccurately, that if seasonal workers are laid off, they get 50 weeks. This is factually incorrect, as the duration varies based on the unemployment rate.

Does the Bloc support the duration of sickness benefits varying based on the unemployment rate?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As my colleague said, just because we have made progress, just because we are moving towards the goal and we can see it does not mean that we need to stop moving.

We recognize what has been done. The Liberal government, when it was in opposition, even proposed this increase from 15 to 50 weeks. It is a matter of fairness and common sense.

I will repeat myself once again. I think that in 2020, after all these years of discussion, and given this is something even the Liberals have already proposed, we should come back to it.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and her important work.

Clearly, the NDP agrees that the benefit period should be extended from 15 to 50 weeks. It is the right thing to do. It is the most compassionate and logical thing to do.

I have a question for my colleague about another flaw in the existing system. When a woman takes maternity leave, she is away for 12 months. If she returns to work and then loses her job a few weeks later, the system will not give her credit for any insured hours because she was on maternity leave.

Would the Bloc Québécois agree that the system should take into account the previous 104 weeks, including the year prior to maternity leave?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think we can agree on that.

As the critic for status of women, I can certainly understand the needs related to maternity. As I said, I have already spoken with a member who worked on the EI issue for pregnant women back in 2006-07. My colleague, Ms. Pauzé, even introduced a bill about that, so I think we can agree. At the moment, we are talking about the 50 weeks, but we can broaden the scope.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind the hon. member for Shefford that she cannot refer to her colleague by name.

The hon. parliamentary secretary, questions and comments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member did not answer the question. The Bloc is telling Canadians that a seasonal worker who is laid off gets 50 weeks, and that is not accurate. Factually, it is incorrect, as the duration varies based on the unemployment rate. Does the Bloc support varying the duration of sickness benefits based on the unemployment rate?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, again, this is about equity.

There have been studies about this. We said we wanted the entitlement to be the same as for people who lose their job. We are open to discussing other improvements. As we have said, we are open to overhauling the employment insurance system.

In answer to my colleague's question, as I said, studies have shown that it is a matter of equity.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey Centre today.

I was really happy to hear the last exchange between the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, on maternity assistance in particular, because this is exactly where I was going to start my discussion today to highlight something that happened in the previous session of Parliament that perhaps a lot of the new Bloc Québécois members are not informed about.

I was very lucky to be chosen as one of the first members to have a private member's bill. I brought forward a private member's bill in 2016 that specifically dealt with women who work in hazardous jobs and the hardships they were put through as a result of the employment insurance system when they were told they could not continue working in those hazardous conditions.

This bill called for a couple of things. It called for an increase in sick time. It called for a national maternity assistance program to look at the various ways that we could help women in hazardous working conditions, given that the labour force is changing.

I will say that the bill went through a lot of ups and downs. There were some discussions along the way. It did not receive unanimous support at the beginning, but it did make its way to committee. It was discussed at committee, where ideas were brought forward. It finally came back to the House, and this House almost unanimously voted in favour of it. All the Conservatives voted for it. All the NDP voted for it. All the Liberals voted for it. The Green Party member voted for it.

Who did not vote for it? The 10 Bloc Québécois members in the House did not vote for it. They were the only members who did not support this private member's bill that was specifically about employment insurance sick leave for women who were working in hazardous jobs. I do not know why. For a while I thought they did not support it because the word “national” was in the title of the bill. I was not sure, but at the end of the day, we did not end up getting unanimous support.

I respect the fact that a lot of the current members of the Bloc Québécois were not here then. However, I am really glad to see that this is one of the issues that they are so focused on this time around, because it is critically important. For that matter, I want to give them credit for bringing forward this very important discussion today.

I asked a few minutes ago about the difference between 50 or 60 weeks and 120 weeks. How did we come to 50 weeks? I did appreciate the answer. I thought I was given a really good answer by the member that specifically touched on the fact that this had to do with employment insurance benefits and what people were getting when they were going off on unemployment. It made a lot of sense to me, and I appreciate the answer.

However, the problem is that we went into this election with a commitment. That commitment was to change from the existing 15 weeks to 26 weeks. We decided that this was the right thing to do. In fact, we saw that it was widely endorsed by various organizations and agencies, in particular those that are advocating on behalf of people who become sick or injured. For example, the Canadian Cancer Society said:

The Canadian Cancer Society (CCS) welcomes the Liberal Party of Canada’s commitment to extend the Employment Insurance Sickness Benefit from 15 to 26 weeks if re-elected.

The proposed extension would support Canadians who have been diagnosed with cancer and need to take time away from work to seek treatment.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said:

The federal government’s commitment to extend employment insurance (EI) sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks is a welcome and overdue expansion of the Canadian social safety net.

The MS Society at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities was quoted as saying:

Harmonize the EI sickness benefits duration of 15 weeks to match the 26 weeks duration of compassionate care benefits.

I would argue that not only are we doing exactly what people asked for, but we are doing stuff that was reported back through committee and that the committee had studied. There were many witnesses in that open and transparent process who could have been questioned and challenged on certain things they were saying.

If we just focus this debate on talking about the time and whether 26 weeks or 50 weeks is the right number, we are going to pay a huge disservice to a lot of the other work that is going on in our country, particularly as it relates to people who become sick or injured and as a result have to take time off work.

I want to focus a bit of my time on talking about some of that research and some of the work that is being done to help sick people to have better lives and a better quality of life.

The main agency that the government works with by funding its research is the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, in particular to look into things like finding a cure for cancer or giving people who have terminal cancer a better quality of life or making sure that people have the resources that they need.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CIHR, spends $1.2 billion every year. Approximately 13,000 Canadian health researchers and trainees are supported under this program throughout the country. They research health and chronic illnesses, support the development of preventive treatments, and aim to get Canadians healthier and back to their normal lives.

Over the last five years, the institute spent $305 million on mental health, $859 million on cancer research specifically, $522 million on cardiovascular diseases and $94 million on chronic pain. Last year in particular, the CIHR partnered with the Canadian Cancer Society for a joint $10-million investment aimed at improving the lives of those with cancer.

It is important to bring up all of this because the issue we are talking about here is not going to be solved just by giving more time and throwing more money at it. I do recognize that employment insurance has its own fund, but we need to ensure at the same time that we are helping to improve the quality of life for these individuals by making sure that we research these illnesses and chronic illnesses so that we can give people better treatment.

I want to give a couple of examples relating to cancer specifically. The money that is being used through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research is working to improve the lives of cancer survivors. Often this includes long-term treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation. Patients have to go through these treatments for several months, and they involve a lot of hospital visits and sick days. The patient, the family, and the caregiver have to endure a lot of hardship as a result.

We also know the economic impact of living with cancer. We need to pay more attention to the economic effects that cancer has on individuals. I know I am running out of time, but I wanted to highlight what is being done in terms of ensuring that research and resources are put towards cancer specifically.

Research is also being done on chronic pain. One in five Canadians lives with chronic pain. It is one of the most common reasons that people seek health care in Canada. The economic impact of chronic pain on this country is estimated to be $56 billion a year.

In 2019, the government established the Canadian pain task force, which is tasked with better defining the causes of chronic pain and providing recommendations to Health Canada with respect to prevention and management. The objective is to reduce the overall impact of chronic pain. This is where the Canadian Institutes of Health Research comes into play. It funds organizations such as these to make sure that we do the research that we need to do.

As I indicated a few moments ago, it is vitally important that we look not just at EI. Based on the private member's bill that I discussed before, I am always interested in having a discussion about the employment insurance system and how we can improve upon it. However, at the same time, it is important that we look at how we can better the lives of individuals from a research perspective to give them a better quality of life and better care during the time of their illness, whether it is cancer or chronic pain, the two examples that I have used.

I appreciate the time I have had to participate in the debate today.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I also like to base my comments on research, but today's debate is not about research or what research says. Research does not help the patients who are fighting every day to survive. This debate has to do with the fact that patients have to fight for their lives every day.

I would like the member to get back to the substance of the debate.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is what I was trying to address. It is not just about the time that is being assigned to EI sick benefits. It is also about a government taking the responsibility of researching and looking into how to give people a better quality of life. The research and the product that is produced as a result of it can be used in addition to things like employment insurance to better the quality of life for individuals. From my perspective, that is what is important. It is more of a holistic approach, as opposed to saying that 50 weeks, 26 weeks or 80 weeks is the answer. We need to look at this a lot more holistically to find out how to improve the lives of people dealing with these illnesses, in particular when they are in the workforce.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is somewhat ironic that this member is talking about employment, unemployment and benefits today. As we found out over the weekend, he paid to have a petition from Queen's University put forward that asks to get rid of the Teck Frontier project. If we took more people off of employment insurance, there would be more room for people who need it, like people who are injured or have cancer.

Does the member think what he is doing right now is appropriate, using taxpayer-funded dollars to ensure that people in Alberta and Saskatchewan do not have jobs so they will be on unemployment longer? He is using money from his office to ensure that Canadians are not working. I do not think that is right. Does he?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question has a very loose connection to the issue of employment insurance, but I am very happy to address it.

At the end of the day, this comes down to giving Canadians the opportunity to have discourse on all issues, whether that discourse is on the issue of employment insurance, which we are discussing today, jobs in Alberta or something happening on the east coast. In my social media platforms, my aim is to make sure that people have the opportunity to have a discussion and go through the deliberative process, because that is what our democracy is based on.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Deputy Government Whip]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague for the tremendous work he did on his private member's bill. I remember very well the work he did on it.

Listening to the hon. member's comments today, I think we would all agree that in the previous and current Parliament, our government has taken some steps to improve our EI system. Could my colleague elaborate on the changes we have made to the caregiver benefit and how that change alone has helped many Canadian families?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the compliments with respect to my previous private member's bill. It certainly was a very fast learning curve to understand what a private member's bill was only shortly after I was elected.

To the hon. member's question with respect to caregivers, we know that we can help not only the individuals who are benefiting from the care they are receiving from their caregivers, but also the health care sector by making sure that people have access to their health caregivers, as opposed to their having to visit doctors or make repeat trips to the hospital. I am sure studies show that it is much more beneficial to have somebody with them, and that is where the caregiver comes into this.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to the motion on employment insurance.

First, I would like to say that more people have come off employment insurance in the last four years than ever before. In fact, one million more jobs were created in the last four years, creating the lowest unemployment rate this country has ever seen.

The employment insurance program pays billions of dollars in benefits to over two million Canadians every year, including to constituents I represent in Surrey Centre. It is one of the most important programs that make up the foundation of our social support system. The employment insurance system provides essential support to workers who have lost their jobs without being responsible for this, to those who cannot work due to illness or pregnancy and to those who have been absent from work to care for a newborn baby, recently adopted child or a seriously ill family member.

An essential component of the EI program is the EI sickness benefit that helps Canadians who are unable to work because of illness, injury or quarantine. Currently, this program provides up to 15 weeks of income replacement. While a majority of Canadians are able to return to work before the end of the 15-week period, about 36% exhaust the full amount before they are able to go back to work. That is why our government and our Prime Minister have included expanding EI sickness benefits to the minister's mandate letter and why our government is committed to expanding the EI sickness benefit from 15 weeks to 26 weeks.

This is an important initiative. It means Canadians will receive financial support at a time when they need to heal and can return as contributing members to the workforce without having suffered undue financial hardship. This commitment was lauded by the Canadian Cancer Society, which said, “The proposed extension would support Canadians who have been diagnosed with cancer and need to take time away from work to seek treatment.”

Canadian workers benefit from a dynamic employment insurance program that is designed to automatically adapt to changes affecting the unemployment rate of an employment insurance economic region. This helps to ensure that people who live in regions with similar labour markets are treated the same, with the amount of assistance provided adjusted to changing labour market conditions. In regions and communities across Canada, our employment insurance program provides income security to our families and workers during periods of unemployment.

Of course, it also provides support to seasonal workers during periods of unemployment. Our government understands the importance of seasonal industries for the success of our country as well as the reality of seasonal workers. Significant sectors, such as the construction industry, agriculture, forestry and fishing, contribute to Canada's economic prosperity. That is why we are working so hard to support these industries and their workers from coast to coast.

The recent decline in unemployment rates in some EI economic regions has resulted in an increase in the number of hours of insurable employment that is required to qualify for regular EI benefits. This increase has resulted in a reduction in the number of weeks of benefits to which claimants are eligible in these regions. This means that some seasonal workers stop receiving EI regular benefits before they are called back to their seasonal job. We know that regions such as eastern Quebec and Atlantic Canada are more severely affected by this lack of income, which is often referred to as the “black hole”.

We sympathize with the workers who find themselves in this situation every year, and I can tell members that our government is closely examining measures to be taken to help these workers. We are working with stakeholders to find solutions to this problem. Our government is committed to improving the employment insurance program to better meet the needs of workers and employers.

When I was a teen, I worked on my uncle's farm in the summer picking blueberries. I saw how hundreds of farm workers helped harvest fruit and produce during the spring and summer and relied on EI during the winters.

Many of the changes we have made over the past four years are already in place and can help seasonal workers. For example, in 2018 we made permanent the rule allowing recipients to keep 50¢ of every dollar earned during the benefit period, and we extended this to maternity and sickness benefits. We also provided five additional weeks to regular benefits to eligible seasonal workers in 13 targeted regions. We estimate that approximately 51,000 seasonal workers will benefit from this measure each year. This government listens and helps Canadians.

We have provided opportunities for eligible claimants to upgrade their skills and increase their employability while receiving their benefits. In particular, we have provided up to $41 million over two years to implement, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, wage subsidies and professional training and employment assistance programs for workers in seasonal industries through labour market development agreements. We are committed to improving the job security of seasonal workers and providing them with more support, especially when employment insurance is interrupted due to a changing job market.

In this regard, we will enhance a recent pilot project that has provided additional assistance to tens of thousands of seasonal workers. At the conclusion of this pilot project, we will set up an ongoing program to give seasonal workers greater and more reliable benefits. These benefits will help them better meet their needs and those of their families between work seasons. We will also collaborate with Statistics Canada to strengthen data collection on local labour markets so that employment insurance can better take into account the realities on the ground, particularly in rural and diverse regions where this is needed the most.

We are aware of the modern realities of the current job market. Society is changing and so is the employment insurance system. It needs to continue to meet the needs of workers and employers. It is a question of balance.

I want my colleagues to understand that our government has committed and remains committed to supporting Canadians from coast to coast to coast when they need it. We have promised to reform the employment insurance system and that is what we are doing. That is why we are working so hard to improve the benefits and supports that Canadian workers receive.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

We are not close-minded in the Bloc Québécois. We gladly welcome the additional provisions, for seasonal work, for example.

I am from Charlevoix, and from Isle-aux-Coudres specifically. It is only accessible by ferry. I am quite familiar with the notions of worker retention and employment insurance. I welcome our friend's announcement about the additional weeks of benefits provided through training. I acknowledge that this will be helpful.

I would, however, like to get back to the topic of employment insurance for serious illnesses. We cannot expect a worker to come work in the region, in Isle-aux-Coudres, in Charlevoix, on a seasonal basis without some sort of guarantee of peace of mind and the assurance of being insured.

When we invite workers, whether they are newcomers or people leaving urban centres in search of fresh air, they do not want to lose any economic status. We really go all out to try and encourage people to come and work in the regions. Then we have to tell them that, if they fall ill, they only have 15 weeks to recover. After that, they can either die or get better, because they do not get any more. That is a real problem, because people say that they would have liked to come and work, but perhaps some other time. They turn their backs and disappear.

The big question at the heart of the motion that we are introducing today is also an economic issue for the regions. There is a direct impact. If we do not arrange to fix EI so we can reassure people who want to come work in the regions, we are going to compromise the regions economically and jeopardize their economic vitality. That point has not been raised much today.

There have been a lot of emotional speeches, and I can do that too. Our colleagues opposite are really fond of figures, so we are going to give them some. They have to understand that.

Given that my colleague seems to be open to seasonal work, I wanted to ask him whether he can guarantee that his party is open to giving sick workers 50 weeks of benefits.

That does not mean that sick people will use 50 weeks as a matter of course. As my friend was saying earlier, people are eager to go back to work. Nevertheless, we want to make sure that people who are very sick have 50 weeks to get better.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague's party for this motion. It is a good initiative to discuss. It involves thousands of people, and very vulnerable people, working hard to help do those jobs that many others cannot do. They are for short periods of time and are very labour-intensive jobs.

When it comes to time off during sickness, I have a close friend who recently went for routine back surgery and was nearly paralyzed due to it. His wife is having to take time off. Her whole world changed. This was supposed to routine surgery, with him being out in a couple of days. Now she does not know when he will walk again or if he will ever walk again. She will need a significant amount of time off.

The Prime Minister has recognized that with a mandate for leave up to 26 weeks, which is six months. As we have seen through trends in the past, two-thirds of Canadians that use this applicable sickness leave will use it within the 15 weeks. However, 36% still do not.

Obviously this will not cover everyone, but it will give them time to readjust. It help those with a long-term sickness or those have loved ones with a long-term sickness.

This is a great start. The dialogue should continue, as we have data coming back, to see if this is an adequate measure.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to share my time with my colleague.

In recent months, the Bloc Québécois has raised the issue of sickness benefits many, many times—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order. Which colleague is that? What is his constituency, please?

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

Madam Speaker, it is my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

The Bloc Québécois has raised today's issue many times. We have made it our priority for debate on this opposition motion day, and with good reason.

The motion 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.

We say “such as cancer” because, according to the figures that were circulated earlier, it is a significant target. However, we are not just talking about cancer. We want the act to be amended to increase benefits for adults with a serious illness from 15 weeks to 50 weeks, or more, if the government wishes.

As members can see, we are deeply committed to this issue, as are many members of other political parties and a majority of the public. Most of us are moving in that direction.

For the past three months, the current government has been saying that it wants to compromise and work with the opposition. In good faith, we in the Bloc Québécois are inclined to believe it. For the government, improving employment insurance presents a wonderful opportunity to act on this desire for partnership and to show that we are capable of working in a non-partisan way for the benefit of all our constituents.

During the last election campaign, the government said that it was in favour of increasing employment insurance benefits from 15 to 26 weeks. We said this before, but we will say it again: kudos. It is a step in the right direction, but it is clearly not enough for us.

Why do we need to amend this legislation?

First of all, it is completely outdated. It came into force in 1971, and there have been no major adjustments since. That was 50 years ago, and a lot has happened in the past 50 years. Society has evolved, and, more importantly, needs have changed. In fact, over the past 50 years, there have been many employment insurance bills aimed specifically at amending the 15 weeks of sickness benefits, but none of them passed.

Since 2002 alone, there was Bill C-442 to improve the employment insurance system, introduced by Yvon Godin, a former NDP member for Bathurst. That was followed in 2004 by Bill C-278, introduced by Paule Brunelle, a former Bloc Québécois member for Trois-Rivières.

In 2006, Mr. Godin reintroduced his bill, this time as Bill C-406. That same year, there was Bill C-269, introduced by former Bloc Québécois member Johanne Deschamps with the same objectives. In 2011, as we mentioned a couple of times this morning, there was also Bill C-291, which was introduced by Denis Coderre, the former Liberal member for Bourassa.

In short, bill after bill has tried and failed to amend the sickness provisions of this EI legislation or to bring them in line with a reality that, over time, had become quite different from what it was in 1971. Given that this issue has been dragging on for all these years, is it not time to settle it once and for all? Is it not time to stop dithering and take action?

Here is another reason we need to change this legislation. Statistics show that one out of every two claimants does not return to work after 15 weeks off. In other words, one out of every two people dealing with a serious illness needs much more time for treatment or recovery than the 15 weeks that are currently provided.

There is another reason to make this change. In a 2008 ruling, the Supreme Court said that the employment insurance power must be interpreted generously.

What is more, let us not forget that, when it comes to employment insurance, Canada is the least generous country in the G7, with the exception of the United States, which is a completely different context. If we look at the percentage of GDP that is spent by each country, we see that Belgium devotes 3.6% of its GDP to employment insurance, while Canada devotes only 0.65%.

Portugal devotes 3.5% of its GDP to employment insurance. Ireland and Spain devote 2.7% of their GDP to employment insurance, and Denmark devotes 2.2%. I would remind members that Canada devotes only 0.65% of its GDP to employment insurance.

On top of that, employment insurance in many of these countries does not last a mere 15 or 26 weeks as the Liberals are proposing. People in these countries can receive employment insurance benefits for one to three years. That is a far cry from our 15 weeks.

Common sense, compassion, equity and social justice are some other reasons to amend this outdated act. The government needs to treat its people right. Treating people right means recognizing the importance of workers, respecting them and making up for the injustices of life. Getting sick and having to take months and months off work is not a choice, it is an injustice of life. We have the duty and power in the House to take quick action to correct this long-standing injustice.

In closing, as an old Tuareg proverb says, in the desert of life, the strong must help the weak because those who are strong today may be weak tomorrow.