Debates of Feb. 18th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Special Employment Insurance sickness benefits

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her question, and I would be pleased to answer it.

In my opinion, it is absurd. We can do it. Everyone wants to co-operate. Everyone agrees. We do not want half measures, we want full-fledged measures. The government has no valid reason to refuse.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my time to thank my fellow citizens in Laurentides—Labelle who placed their faith in me. This is the first opportunity I have had to do so.

I would especially like to thank all of my volunteers, including Samuel Gervais and Alexandre Dubé. I would also like to thank everyone in my team. People will soon get to know them. I would like to thank Maryse Larente and Annie-Claude Poirier at the Mont-Laurier office, and Isabelle Paré at the Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts office. Lastly, I would like to thank Mathieu Laroche Casavant, who now works on Parliament Hill.

Our loved ones make a difference in our lives. My mother was instrumental in my being here today, addressing members of the House in an effort to improve the collective well-being. I would also like to thank my in-laws. Work-life balance is a challenge that many of us are currently facing.

Of course, I would also like to thank my children, Anne-Sophie and Ève-Marie, and my spouse, Yanick Thibault. They have been there from the start, and they have faith in me. I must honour them, since what happens here during the 43rd Parliament will determine what happens in Canada in the coming years.

I would also like to recognize someone who gave me the courage to do this, and that is former MP Johanne Deschamps. She was a member of the House for four Parliaments, from 2004 to 2011. She made a significant contribution to the well-being of constituents, particularly when it came to employment insurance.

I would like to explain why I decided to go into politics. In my short life, I have worked in various sectors where employment insurance was very important. I am talking mainly about the forestry industry, which experienced a crisis, and the health sector, which underwent a significant reform.

I also worked in the arts, in the community sector and in social development. That brings me to the positive impact that an increase in EI sickness benefits would have, and we sincerely hope that will happen. I am sure that members of the House will agree to quickly increase the number of weeks of benefits from 15 to 50.

As I was saying earlier, I hope that we will be able to improve the employment insurance program during this Parliament. I am sure that we can do so. That is what we have been talking about since this morning. Right now, the system is unfair because it provides only 15 weeks of sickness benefits. People have no control over their health, just like they have no control over a plant closure. This warrants analysis.

I have to admit that the employment insurance system has been improved in recent decades. I will admit that, but there is still work that needs to be done to make the system fair. This system is not accessible to most people who contributed to it.

Let's look back in time, since the best way to know where we are going is to know where we have come from.

I want to remind everyone that until 1990, in Canada, the government paid into the EI fund. In 1990, the Conservative government upset the balance by putting an end to federal contributions to the EI fund, meaning it had to be funded entirely by employers and workers. This created a very large deficit. What happened? The government tried to make up for the deficit by slashing the coverage provided by the system, reducing the amounts paid to claimants and tightening the eligibility rules for workers.

This had a major impact. It cut the number of people covered by the system in half between 1989 and 1997. It also created a huge surplus, and I have proof. Figures show that labour income accounted for 2.3% of Canada's GDP in 1990 and 0.6% in 2015. The people of Laurentides—Labelle were directly affected by those rules, which put them in an extremely vulnerable situation. I must admit that I even experienced it myself, and I could go on and on about it.

Those cuts helped amass a slush fund of nearly $50 billion. Who suffered? Our workers and employers suffered. For the last 30 or 40 years, they have been the only contributors to the fund, and every year, the surpluses in the fund are swallowed up by a federal machine whose appetite knows no bounds. I would like to know why taxpayers' money is being used for things that are not in their best interest. It saddens me today to know that many of our friends, colleagues and relatives have been deprived of this program.

Now I wonder. I think the employment insurance program in its current form is no longer about helping workers. Should those who benefit from this program not be the ones who contribute to it? Some of these people spend their whole life building up this fund without ever being able to access it when they really need it, especially when they involuntarily contract a serious illness.

We all know that no one chooses to get sick. I would like to share with the House an experience I had a few years ago when I was a political staffer for the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle, Johanne Deschamps. I was having a hard time helping a constituent when he told me he had just one week of benefits left and was not even halfway through his chemotherapy treatments. I checked the law. Indeed, this person had no other options, since he was not eligible for EI benefits because he had several assets. That bothered me because we had no way of giving him something he was perfectly entitled to receive.

I would like to share another thought with the House about the term “insurance”. In my opinion, insurance exists to cover real needs, such as theft, fire or disability insurance. When workers have needs due to illness, the program does not do enough to assist them.

Do hon. members agree that the assistance should be equivalent to what a worker gets when they lose their job?

I am sure no one can object to improving the well-being of our constituents. We have to make this program fair. Right now, it is not fair to everyone who contributes to it. I am calling on all hon. members to agree to extend sickness benefits to 50 weeks.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

She addressed the financial aspects of the employment insurance fund, which is very well managed. Members will recall that the situation was worrisome for several years. This fund is meant to provide support for people who lose their jobs in the conventional way. The fund now also provides support for people on maternity leave, among others.

If we expand the program too much and then there are massive job losses, this would lead to huge demand on the fund. Would we be prepared to increase premiums?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

Earlier I mentioned that some improvements have been made. We have made adjustments based on needs, and we have come a long way. We have made improvements to benefits for new parents and for people providing end-of-life care for loved ones.

There is just one glaring inequity left, and that is EI sickness benefits. We need to go just a little bit further. This issue has been talked about for a long time already. This is nothing new, and I am confident that this is something we will do together.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague on her magnificent speech and her extremely well-structured arguments.

If I may, I would like to address the question asked by the Liberal member who just had the floor about whether we are prepared to increase premiums. I would like to remind her that, in recent years, the EI fund has posted an average annual surplus of $3 billion to $4 billion. Every year, the government, whether Conservative or Liberal, has taken this surplus and transferred it to the consolidated revenue fund.

Had money not been taken out of this fund, which is paid for by employers and employees, we would now have a surplus of some $20 billion from the past five years alone. That could have financed all of my colleague’s proposals, including not only EI sickness benefits, but also compensation for the seasonal workers’ black hole, which is the five-week period between the end of their EI benefits and the date they return to work.

The money could also have been used for the preventive withdrawal of pregnant women. When these women return to work and then lose their job, their months on preventive withdrawal should not be taken into account in the determination of whether they are eligible for EI.

I would like to ask my colleague if she agrees that the implementation of the intentions stated in today's motion is not a matter of money, but a matter of political will.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am in complete agreement with my hon. colleague.

The billions of dollars transferred to the consolidated revenue fund are gone. The slightly more than $1 billion we are talking about is so small, and, in any case, it comes from workers and employers. The figures are there, and they are very reassuring. There is no reason not to support the motion and agree to this request.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

The NDP agrees with the proposals that have been put forward. It is unbelievable that sickness benefits last only 15 weeks, but that compassionate care benefits for informal caregivers last 26 weeks. Caregivers can take more time off work than sick people. This is an inconsistency in the program that must be corrected.

Does my colleague agree with our party that we should reduce the number of hours required to be eligible for benefits in general, since less than 40% of unemployed workers are eligible for EI?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will address the two points raised by my colleague.

I am wondering about something. If I am a fisher and am eligible to receive EI for seasonal work, but I happen to get sick, is it better to claim as a fisher or as someone with a serious illness? When a seasonal worker is off work, they are fortunately entitled to 50 weeks of benefits. However, if that worker falls ill, they are only entitled to 15 weeks. There is a contradiction.

That said, the program certainly must be made available to all people who need it. For the time being, let us start by increasing benefits from 15 weeks to 50. We will propose other improvements to the program later.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak about the employment insurance program.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

Our government is proud of this long-standing program that has offered support to Canadians in times of need for 80 years. When a Canadian loses their job through no fault of their own, the EI program is there. When a mother or father needs to care for their newborn child, or when someone needs to take care of a gravely ill family member, EI is there.

Since its creation in 1940, EI remains a pillar of Canada's social safety net. Today, I would like to talk about our continued support for workers through the employment insurance program.

Since 2015, our government has made a series of changes to the employment insurance program that benefit Canadian workers across the country. For example, we reversed the 2012 changes to the employment insurance program that specified the types of jobs that unemployed workers were expected to search for and accept. The long-standing requirements that claimants must search for and accept available work while on employment insurance will continue to be upheld. This change took effect on July 3, 2016.

In 2016, we also helped workers living in the regions most affected by low oil prices. We did that by temporarily extending the duration of EI regular benefits for all eligible claimants by five weeks in 15 targeted regions. Up to a maximum of 20 additional weeks were provided to long-tenured workers.

That same year, we announced that as of January 1, 2017, the waiting period for EI benefits would be reduced from two weeks to one week. Today, I am able to say that as of October 1, 2019, approximately 5 million claimants combined have benefited from this change.

Reducing the waiting period from two weeks to one week relieves the financial burden on claimants when they need it most.

In addition, about two-thirds of claimants return to work before they exhaust all of their weeks of benefit entitlement. As a result of the waiting period reduction, these claimants gain one extra week of benefits. In fact, it is estimated that this puts an additional $650 million in the pockets of Canadians annually.

The reduced waiting period applies to regular, sickness, maternity, parental, compassionate care, family caregiver, and fishing benefits. This means that Canadians in all workplaces are benefiting. The package of changes to the EI system does not stop there.

The new measures put in place also include eliminating new entrant and re-entrant rules to increase access to EI benefits, making permanent the working-while-on-claim rules and simplifying job search responsibilities for claimants. Let me provide a little more detail.

First, we amended the rules to eliminate the higher eligibility requirements that restricted access for new entrants and re-entrants to the labour market. Under the previous rules, new entrants and re-entrants to the labour market had to accumulate at least 910 hours of insurable employment before being eligible for employment insurance regular benefits.

As a result of the changes we have made since July 3, 2016, those who enter or re-enter the workforce are subject to the same eligibility requirements as other claimants in the region where they live, namely from 420 to 700 insurable hours.

Also, we made changes to working-while-on-claim rules, which help claimants stay connected to the job market and allow them to earn some additional income while receiving benefits. These improvements, which took effect August 2018, are that the 50¢-for-every-dollar-earned rule became a permanent part of the employment insurance program, and that the working-while-on-claim rules were extended to now apply to sickness and maternity benefits.

We are also helping seasonal workers through a new pilot project announced in August 2018. This pilot project provides up to an additional five weeks of EI regular benefits to eligible seasonal claimants in 13 targeted regions. It is estimated that 51,500 seasonal workers will benefit from this initiative each year.

Finally, we are supporting adult learners through skills boost. EI claimants now have more opportunities to go back to school to get the training they need to find new jobs without fear of losing their EI benefits. During our last mandate, we also improved conditions for workers.

Many Canadians are struggling to balance work, family and other personal responsibilities. That is why we brought in amendments to the Canada Labour Code to ensure a better work-life balance and to strengthen labour standards protections in federally regulated private sector workplaces.

In 2017, our government introduced legislation to give federally regulated workers the right to request flexible work arrangements, such as flexible start and finish times. Subsequently, in 2018, we introduced further amendments to support even greater flexibility in the workplace. Among these changes are new breaks and leaves, including personal leave of up to five days with three days' pay. This new leave can be used for, among other things, medical appointments or sick days, or to take a dependant to a medical appointment.

We also introduced leave for victims of family violence of up to 10 days with five days paid, and leave for traditional indigenous practices of up to five days unpaid.

Access to many existing leaves, including critical illness ?leave and reservist leave, was also improved by eliminating length of service requirements.

Also, changes were made to increase annual vacation entitlements, so that workers have more downtime to spend doing the things they love. These legislative changes came into force on September 1, 2019.

We know that many employees struggle to balance the demands of work and family due to lack of time and scheduling conflicts. These changes to the Canada Labour Code will provide better work-life balance.

Without a doubt, we are taking the necessary steps to support hard-working Canadians. The situation of every Canadian is unique with different family and work needs.

By making employment insurance benefits more flexible, more inclusive and easier to access, and by modernizing labour standards, we are providing hard-working Canadian families with more options to better balance their work and life responsibilities.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about EI benefits in Alberta. I want to jump off on this point, because we hear over and over again from the government that it is doing things for energy workers, that it extended EI.

Of course, EI should be available for people who are not working, but what we could really do to support energy workers in Alberta is actually establish the conditions where they do not need to collect EI and they could be working. We have members of the Liberal caucus actively speaking out against the Teck Frontier project and supporting petitions opposing that project. We have members of the government caucus as well as other parties who are actively opposing these projects, which have indigenous and community support and are necessary to allow people to get back to work.

I would say to the hon. member, on behalf of the people in Alberta who I represent, that our priority is not EI but it is actually establishing the conditions that allow people to have hope and opportunity through employment.

Would the member recognize that the primary thing he could do for energy workers is to support the development of vital projects, such as Teck Frontier, pipelines and other projects that have community and indigenous support and are in the national interest?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, with respect to EI and the situation in Alberta, as the member is aware, we have also been working on TMX and bringing it forward. As the parliamentary secretary in the last Parliament, I was working hard to make sure that this project moved forward in the right way. We are seeing it develop and continuing. This is creating thousands of jobs in Alberta and British Columbia.

Another project is Line 3. The Canadian side has been approved, we approved it, we are in support of it, and we are now in talks with the U.S. to make sure that extension is provided.

Also, there is Keystone XL. I was in Washington last year at a mining conference and I took the opportunity to talk with governors and senators in the U.S. about the issue of Keystone and where it was at, because on the Canadian side it had been approved and ready to go, but it was basically on the U.S. side.

As well, there is LNG. Three weeks ago, I was in Kitimat at the Roundup conference in Vancouver. I told my team that I wanted to visit the LNG plant in Kitimat to show support. I spoke with the Haisla First Nation chief as well as the mayor of Kitimat and did a tour of the LNG plant.

We are working hard to have these projects advance and create good jobs. There are billions of dollars of investment in Canada that would create thousands of jobs. We realize that and that is what we are working hard towards.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The NDP is certainly in favour of increasing EI sickness benefits to 50 weeks. That would be the most acceptable and compassionate approach, and it would be more in line with people's reality.

I have a question for my Liberal Party colleague. Only 40% of unemployed people get EI benefits because the hours of work eligibility threshold is too high. In other words, 100% of workers contribute, but only 40% of workers who lose their job have access to benefits.

Why does the Liberal government not have an action plan to fix this problem so that all unemployed individuals can get support from this social program when they need it?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an important question. Our government has already reduced the number of hours required, but I understand workers’ anxiety about premiums and access to benefits.

With respect to the 15 weeks of benefits that are currently offered, the government wants to extend the period to 26 weeks. That was in our election platform, and that is what stakeholders such as the Canadian Cancer Society told us was needed. They clearly asked us to extend the period from 15 weeks to half a year. That is where the number 26 comes from. It will make a big difference for people who are suffering. My father got cancer while he was employed. He had a hard time, because he was only allowed 15 weeks off. Increasing the benefit period to 26 weeks would help a lot. We hear what is being said today in the House, and we will see if we can do more, but the government wants to propose what we campaigned on. We want to make sure we can offer 26 weeks of benefits.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today to talk about how we have enhanced employment insurance.

The employment insurance program is one of the pillars of our social safety net. We are taking measures to ensure that it continues to serve workers and employers in a spirit of fairness and compassion.

Generally speaking, EI benefits are extremely effective. They fulfill the purpose for which they were created. They provide support for Canadians who are looking for a job, working to improve their skills, dealing with an illness or preparing to become a parent or caregiver. However, Canadian jobs and Canadian families are changing. This means that the program must change as well.

As a result, we are committed to improving the employment insurance program so that it continues to serve people. Part of our government's commitment to Canadian workers includes expanding the EI sickness benefit from 15 to 26 weeks. This commitment was welcomed 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.

In addition, our commitment to expand EI sickness benefits from 15 to 26 weeks matches the recommendations from the MS Society of Canada and the Community Unemployed Help Centre that were brought forward at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

We have already worked hard to make improvements to the program. Let me detail a few of these now.

In January 2017 we shortened the employment insurance waiting period from two weeks to one week. The goal of this change was to ease the financial strain on claimants, and I am proud to say that we reached that goal. By October 2019 about five million claimants had benefited from the reduced waiting period.

Another change we made is helping to make the El program more flexible. Eligible pregnant workers are now able to receive employment insurance maternity benefits earlier, up to 12 weeks before their due date. This gives women more leeway to consider their personal, health and workplace circumstances as they decide when to start their maternity leave. As of December 2018, about 8,000 workers had made use of this new flexibility.

We know how challenging it can be to raise a family. That is why we improved the employment insurance parental benefits. Since December 2017 parents have been able to choose a longer parental leave at a lower benefit rate. It turns out that a lot of parents are taking advantage of this option. As of December 2018 approximately 32,000 parents had chosen the extended parental benefit option.

To further demonstrate the government's commitment to parents, the employment insurance parental sharing benefit was launched in March 2019. Its main objective is to promote greater gender equality in the home and workplace by encouraging parents to share parental leave.

More precisely, it offers an additional five weeks of employment insurance standard parental benefits reserved for a second parent. This approach is designed to create an incentive for all parents to take some leave when welcoming a new child and to share equally in the responsibility of raising their children.

There is also the family caregiver benefit. Our government knows that many Canadians have to take time off from work to care for a loved one. We wanted to help them as well. That is why we made changes to make employment insurance benefits for caregivers more flexible, inclusive and easier to access. These changes came into effect in December 2017.

Caregivers can access up to 15 weeks of benefits to provide care to an adult family member with a critical illness or injury.

We have also enhanced the benefits available to parents when they provide care or support to a critically ill child by extending eligibility to include additional family members who may provide care to the child. Also, in order to improve access to EI caregiving benefits, both medical doctors and nurse practitioners are now able to sign medical certificates.

As I mentioned, the Government of Canada is looking for ways to improve the EI program so that it meets the needs of Canadian workers. That is why changes were made to improve the sickness benefit. As of August 2018, the EI working while on claim rules were extended to EI maternity and sickness benefits, including those for eligible self-employed persons. This measure provides Canadians who are dealing with an illness or injury with greater flexibility to manage their return to work and keep more of their EI benefits.

Also, EI claimants in receipt of parental benefits, compassionate care benefits or the EI family caregiver benefit can switch to the sickness benefit if they become ill or injured while on claim.

Finally, I want to mention one more change to the EI program. I am talking about our new EI skills boost measure, which was created to better support claimants who have lost their job after several years in the workplace. Through skills boost we are providing claimants with more opportunities to take full-time training while continuing to receive employment insurance benefits. The promotion and expansion of employment insurance flexibilities for training will encourage more claimants to upgrade their skills while receiving benefits.

I also want to mention some important changes the Government of Canada recently made to the Canada Labour Code. These changes provide better work-life balance and strengthen labour standards protections in federally regulated private sector workplaces. Changes include new leaves such as personal leave and leave for victims of family violence, improved access to existing leave and general holiday pay, improved annual vacation entitlements and leave for traditional indigenous practices. These changes came into force on September 1, 2019, and exemplify the flexibility and work-life balance we are trying to achieve for Canadian workers.

The reality is that families and workplaces are changing, so EI must also change.

Employment insurance needs to keep up with the modern realities of today's labour market. It needs to continue to serve workers, and it needs to work well for employers too.

It is all a question of balance.

Giving employees flexibility is good for our economy as all of Canada benefits.

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

Madam Speaker, we are often fixated on the full term of EI, but we know individuals do not necessarily always need 100% of the 15 weeks, or the full term. One can actually utilize EI by being, as the member referred to it, flexible.

Perhaps the member could reiterate that what our government has done to utilize the current term is very beneficial. Again, I think he used the term "flexible".

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague's concern on this issue. Illness is disruptive and often devastating to families and Canadians. We know how much the EI sickness benefit means to Canadians. We know that over 400,000 Canadians utilize EI sickness benefits annually and we also know that about one-third of those Canadians max out their claim benefits.

We agree with the Canadian Cancer Society, which stated that 15 weeks is simply not enough. It does not provide the amount of time or the flexibility Canadians require, which is why this government is committed to extending the duration of EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks, which is half a year, or six months. This is the first serious modernization in 40 years.

We understand that this is a first step. This is a critical and crucial first step. We know it is just the first step, and we are committed to continuing our dialogue with the members of this House and other stakeholders across Canada.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member said that his government cleared the backlog for EI claims, yet I have heard from members who are seeing serious wait times for EI claims and are told that staff will get to them when they can. Could the member tell us what the current timeline is for an EI claim?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, this government has reduced the wait times from two weeks to one week. In terms of the wait period, I do not have that answer at this point in time, but I would be happy to find that information and meet with my colleague after this session to provide him with that critical information.

[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, my colleague made reference to some of the things we have done as a government to enhance and make some changes to EI. Earlier today I mentioned how important it is to recognize the significant achievement of going from 15 weeks to a half year. We are moving forward with this, after the number of years during which there was no action taken on this front.

I would like the member to provide his thoughts on why it is important that we make this change.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, indeed, Canadians want an EI system that is responsive and flexible. They have been waiting 40 years for changes to the system. It has been 40 years since a government has introduced any serious modernization of the EI system.

This government is 100% committed to modernizing EI and sickness benefits. That means reducing the EI waiting period from two weeks to one week. That means extending parental benefits and parental leave for an additional five weeks. That means making working while on claim permanent, providing flexibility to Canadians who are looking to reintegrate into the workforce.

Now we are committed to extending EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to a full 26 weeks. That is six months. This last change is absolutely critical. It represents the first significant modernization of the EI sickness benefits in 40 years. It is just the first step. We are committed to continued dialogue. We are committed to listening to Canadians on this very important issue.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Shefford.

The issue we are debating is a delicate one, especially for me. Yesterday, at 1:30 a.m., a close friend of the Fermont community passed away after a long struggle with illness. Her struggle was made easier because the entire community was behind her. I do not just mean the residents of Fermont, but people from Fermont who have moved all over the province and across Canada as well.

We were all behind her. Some offered their time, while others quietly paid for her groceries or heating oil. She had a community to support and help her, but we did not talk to her about it, because she had too much pride and strength of character to accept that kind of help. That is often the case. Please forgive me if I am particularly emotional today. The ordeal this woman went through is something that my mother-in-law, my grandmother and my father went through as well. I would not wish it on anyone.

Roughly 23% of sick people have access to these 15 weeks of benefits, so already, not many people have access to employment insurance even though this is supposed to be a universal measure. With only 23% of sick people getting better within the 15-week period, it is no longer universal, it is discriminatory.

Illness, whether it be cancer or any other form of illness, is an ordeal for the person who is sick and for that person's friends and family. However, it is also a financial hardship. Perhaps some members have never been unemployed even once in their lives, so for those who do not know, employment insurance benefits are equal to 55% of the person's income. That is hardly a gold mine.

Sick people who are fighting for their health and their lives on 55% of their income are being told that they can have 15 weeks of benefits. What if they need 26 weeks to recover? Too bad.

However, healing requires not only family, friends, the community and money, but also good morale. It undermines people's chances of recovering when the morale is not there and when they are constantly stressed and do not know whether they will be able to put food on the table for their children the next day. That gives cancer or any other illness more power over the person's system. It has been shown that stress can have an irreparable effect on the immune system. If the immune system is already compromised and continues to grow weaker, there is less chance that the person will be able to recover from the illness or at least keep it in check. This may be difficult to understand for someone who has never been unemployed, who has never been sick or who has been lucky enough to have help. The purpose of my comments is to make members think. I am a teacher, as members know.

I was saying earlier that 23% of sick people will get better within 15 weeks. Most take 30 weeks to recover. That is probably why the Liberal government has suddenly agreed to increase the number of weeks of sickness benefits to 26.

However, that still leaves 20% to 25% of people who will need 50 weeks or even more. That is a significant percentage. We are talking about human beings. I am not talking about 1% or 2% or even 0.5%. I am talking about 20% to 25%, or one-quarter of the population.

There are 338 MPs in the House. If we all became sick tomorrow, one-quarter of us would need 50 weeks. How many of us would want to be without any income from the 26th week to the final week of recovery? How many of us?

This is a matter of compassion, but also common sense. We have a duty to our constituents, and this is their own money. Workers and employers contribute to the fund. This is not the government's money.

When the employment insurance fund gets above a certain amount, the government starts dipping into it. The government needs to stop doing that. This fund exists for the future and for hard times. It is our nest egg. When the nest egg is full because regular contributions have been made day after day, year after year, we are able to provide adequate, caring and compassionate support to those around us.

It is unacceptable that a person without group or private insurance ends up without money at week 16, unable to pay for rent, groceries or socks in the winter. It is unacceptable that the person is unable to support themselves or others. Worse yet, that person is getting poorer. Their morale is low, and the money is no longer there. If they are lucky, they have a nest egg. If they are luckier still, they have a network to help them, and they start a fundraiser.

Is that what Canada is? Is that the Canada we want for our people? Is that the Canada we want for the most vulnerable and marginalized members of our society?

Surviving cancer is one of the biggest victories a person can have. Even more extraordinary is that all those who win their battle go on to get involved in society, volunteering in their own community.

How much is this help worth? How much is a life worth? How much is it worth for a person to be able to return to work and get their confidence, their honour and their pride back?

We are talking about $1.1 billion if every sick person who is entitled to EI sickness benefits takes the full 50 weeks. When a person manages to heal and recover, they are eager to get back to work, because 55% of their salary is no gold mine, as I was saying. It is our duty to help our constituents, especially those who need it most.

I am calling on all hon. members to fulfill not only a duty of compassion, but also a duty of conscience and an economic duty.

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

Madam Speaker, the member gave an extremely passionate and well-delivered speech.

I apologize if I missed this in an earlier part of the debate. Maybe the subject has come up so I do run the risk of asking a question that perhaps has already been asked. I wonder if the member can share with the House why the Bloc Québécois thought that 50 weeks was the magic number. Why is it not 60 weeks, why not 40, why not 120? Where did the 50 weeks specifically come from? The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities did a study on this. Did the number of weeks come from that study?

I wonder if the member can share some insight into that.

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

Madam Speaker, the question has already been asked, but it bears repeating.

If I were still a teacher and I lost my job tomorrow morning, I would be entitled to up to 50 weeks of EI, depending on the number of hours I had worked. It is simply a matter of fairness. If I have to leave my job because of illness, it would only be fair that I receive benefits for the same number of weeks as someone who loses their job for any other reason. It is simply a matter of fairness and justice.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very compassionate and touching speech that was full of poignancy. She spoke to Quebeckers about what they are going through or have been through.

She said something that struck me when she was talking about the nest egg that belongs to the workers and not to the government, which has been helping itself to the fund for years now.

Could we all agree that the money in that fund belongs to the workers and should be used to help workers when they need it?

Why does the Liberal government not understand that?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I wish I could give him an answer, but I do not have the Liberal philosophy needed to answer that question.

I do not understand either. If I build a nest egg for myself, I put my own money into it, and I do not understand how my neighbour can tell me how to use my nest egg.

I think the government would be better suited than me to answer that question.