Debates of Feb. 18th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Special Employment Insurance sickness benefits

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

Madam Speaker, I want to defend myself against this accusation of inconsistency from the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

I will explain to the hon. member, who is new to the House, that we are currently having a debate. I have not yet indicated how I will vote. The vote will be held tomorrow after question period. What I am saying is that we have to take care of these people. My slogan is not “50 years, 50 weeks”.

Let us give this some thought and take this initiative seriously.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

I add my voice to those of my colleagues to emphasize the importance of this motion regarding special EI benefits. I do so in all seriousness. I am not convinced that the member who spoke before me was being very serious.

The first example, which we have been speaking about at length, is cancer. According to Canadian Cancer Society statistics from 2019, breast cancer survival rates have increased by 48% since 1986. However, it is the second most frequently diagnosed type of cancer. Nearly half of all Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. My mother died of cancer over 20 years ago. At the time, one in 10 people would be diagnosed with cancer. Now it is one in two. Lastly, also according to the Canadian Cancer Society, nearly one in four people will die of cancer.

There are many inconsistencies in the EI system, since it has been butchered in the past. We have tinkered with they system. Why not keep tinkering with it to help people who need it because they are ill?

I would like to point out another inconsistency and injustice with respect to the sickness benefit versus the compassionate care benefit. In the socio-demographic context of an aging population, the role of caregivers, more than 60% of whom are women, is key when discussing care for the sick and elderly. It was only right to create the compassionate care benefit. It has a maximum benefit of 26 weeks. It must be said that it is unusual that an individual suffering from a serious illness cannot receive the same number of weeks of benefits.

I will now talk about a situation that is not entirely hypothetical. A caregiver taking care of a seriously ill person suggests that they spend a week down south to escape the cold winter weather and storms. To feel better and take a refreshing break, these people decide to go on a trip. The caregiver can leave the country without losing their compassionate care benefits, but the person who is ill would lose that week of benefits. That week of benefits would not be paid.

I believe that we all have a responsibility to give sick people a chance to heal. Illness does not discriminate. Illness is everywhere, and it does not only strike people who have wage loss insurance or critical illness insurance. A worker who is seriously ill must be able to focus on getting to remission and, if possible, making a full recovery.

People grappling with illness face all kinds of difficult situations. For example, they have to rearrange their daily routines in their personal and professional lives, they see an inevitable drop in income and they have to cover the costs associated with hospital visits.

Let us try to imagine what thousands of patients are going through. I invite my colleagues to take a moment to consider what 15 weeks looks like in real life.

In week one, the patient is diagnosed with stage II colorectal cancer, or perhaps with what is initially considered an inoperable pancreatic cancer. The doctor encourages the patient to seek treatment and comes up with a clinical picture. The patient and their loved ones are left in shock.

The following week, the patient gets their schedule for the first three-week cycle of chemotherapy. Their loved ones are responsive, taking turns keeping the children on schedule. The administrative aspects of the patient's work absence are taken care of. The patient's spouse takes compassionate leave and provides support. Together, they are earning $803 a week before taxes. They have two kids who are old enough to understand what is going on.

In week four, a check-up shows promising results.

In week five, the patient starts a new cycle of chemo. The next few weeks are a time of increased weakness, lethargy, hair loss, chronic fatigue and worried looks. The anxiety and dark thoughts are overwhelming.

In week nine, the second cycle is complete. The results are promising, however, and the medical follow-up changes. The tumour is now operable. The patient then has to prepare by eating well, getting as much rest as possible and keeping their spirits up.

In week 11, it is finally time to operate. The doctor is confident. The patient is exhausted but full of hope. There are some minor post-operative complications, but nothing too serious.

In week 12, the patient goes home. That is when their family's financial situation really hits them. In the struggle to stay alive, they had not allowed themselves to pay much attention to financial matters. Then comes the inevitable: in two weeks, the benefits will stop.

The patient's spouse might be able to stay home for a few more weeks, but with the patient's health improving, will the compassionate care benefits get cut? Can the household continue to function with a taxable income of $573 per week? What if the patient were a single parent?

The next form that the patient would need to fill out would be a welfare application, as my colleague alluded to earlier. That is what the 15-week period leads to.

Is it not enough that patients have to deal with follow-up appointments, future treatments and their many side effects, anxiety, sadness, children and loved ones? Must we also add to their struggles by denying them 50 weeks of sickness benefits? Must we really wait until June 2020 to consider this in committee? Is it not time to act? We can do it now. The vote is tomorrow.

I remind the House that it has been 12 years since the $57 million surplus was taken from the employment insurance fund by the federal government and transferred to general revenue. It has to end. That money was paid by workers and employers.

I will exercise some restraint and not utter the word that springs to mind when the $57 million taken by the government are mentioned.

Thanks to breakthroughs in medical research, people with serious illnesses have a glimmer of hope. Tales of victory and survival are no longer as rare as they once were. We all have survivors in our personal and professional circles. There are even some right here in this House. Going back to a normal life also means going back to work and to a daily routine.

As my party's critic for the environment, I must talk about the links between the environment and health. It is imperative to once again underscore in this House how important it is to look at this issue in terms of environmental issues. If we take a frank and honest look at the situation, given that we have workers dealing with serious illnesses, it has to be part of the discussion. Everybody's health, and workers' health specifically in this case, will be bound up more and more closely with environmental issues in the coming years.

I will give a bit more information on that subject. We talked about research this afternoon. Let us see what the results are.

According to the Canadian Medical Association, air pollution causes 21,000 premature deaths each year. Those were people who were already sick.

Last year, the scientific journal Epidemiology published conclusive research from McGill University's Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health. The data are significant. Nanoparticles from fuels and volatile pollutants increase the risk of brain cancer by 10%. Rising rates of thyroid cancers over the last 30 years show links between health, pollution and the environment.

Lastly, The Lancet, a scientific journal that is renowned as a leading authority, publishes reports, which are now in their 4th edition.

Given all these results, how can anyone justify maintaining the same 15-week period we have had since 1996?

I will conclude by saying that human decency is knocking on the government's door today.

Many people have rallied to fight cancer and other serious illnesses and were unable to access EI benefits that fit their needs because of their professional circumstances. More than 500,000 people have signed Ms. Dubé's petition, which members of this House received in 2016. Many families are joining together to offer support, hope and love to those who fall victim to an insidious disease that they did not choose. On behalf of all these people, we ask the government to open the door and support our motion.

[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, as we have been moving forward over the last number of years with changes and making our EI system that much better, ministries within the government have been working with different stakeholders. I referenced some of those earlier today, particularly in the health care area. The idea of 26 weeks or half a year was widely accepted. Increasing it from 15 weeks to 26 weeks or half a year would be a positive thing.

Toward the end of her speech, the member talked about the importance of data, about the information that is there. Now that the Bloc understands that the government is moving forward, that we are going to look at increasing sick benefits to half a year, does that party recognize that some of the information that is being talked about today should go to committee where we could look at not only increasing sick benefits, but the wider picture that really needs to be addressed?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I expected a different one.

We can act now. Why wait? We have the data, and I can provide more. What are we waiting for? Right now, sick people get only 15 weeks of benefits. Whether it is a broken bone or cancer, they get 15 weeks, period. Something is obviously not right with this picture.

I will admit that the federal government made progress on EI during the last Parliament. I also recognize that EI was butchered in the past. In 2011, 2012 and 2013, the government did everything in its power to limit access to employment insurance. The previous government made progress, but much more needs to be done. If we start reviewing everything, we will still be here in 10 years. We know how these things go. I will not be here in 10 years, but others will be.

Tomorrow, we can vote for the motion and provide immediate relief to those who are suffering. I feel like that is what an MP's role should be.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Repentigny for her speech.

I would like to ask her a question. Earlier, we saw that some of our colleagues, including the members for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier and Winnipeg North, seem to think a 50-week benefit period is too much and that a 26-week benefit period would suffice. The Bloc Québécois members believe that people who are ill should receive benefits for the entire duration of their illness, up to a maximum of 50 weeks.

If our colleagues from Winnipeg North and Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier are giving up their constituents' benefits, could that money be used in other ridings so that people can receive benefits for a longer period?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who always has some very practical ideas.

What needs to be highlighted is that members asked why we did not call for 60 or 70 weeks and whether we would be adding 20 weeks if it were 20 years from now. We need to be serious. A worker who loses their job is entitled to 50 weeks of benefits, whereas a worker who becomes ill is entitled to 15 weeks. That is the baseline amount, and that is what we are condemning. It is time for change. Since 1996, benefits have been capped at 15 weeks.

Yes, some things have improved. However, with everything that is happening in terms of pollution and climate change, some things are getting worse. As I stated in my speech, my mother died more than 20 years ago. At the time, one in 10 people got cancer. Today, it is one in two. In my opinion, what people eat, drink and breathe must have something to do with it.

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

Madam Speaker, to begin with, I would like to reassure the people of my riding. They are not just concerned about employment insurance sickness benefits. They are also concerned about the infamous spring gap that many of them will have to deal with in March. I want to reassure my constituents that I will listen to them and will continue to work hard so that the special EI needs of people in the regions are heard. I will not give up. That is for sure.

In my riding, as in many other ridings in Quebec, employment insurance is key to worker retention, as I was explaining to our colleagues. We cannot claim to be calling for such action without promising the workers in question that they will benefit from EI measures that are fair and adapted to both a temporary lack of work and certain health realities.

Obviously, the Bloc Québécois wants to have more autonomy over employment insurance so that we can better adapt it to the reality in Quebec, both its urban centres and its regions. For example, we would like to establish a seasonal worker status. What is more, we would like to implement an insurance process that would give workers who are seriously ill access to income protection insurance that is flexible, appropriate and fair and that would allow them to extend the benefit period based on their health and their doctor's evaluation. Of course, we are not at that point, because we do not have sovereignty over employment insurance, but that is one of our objectives.

We all know that no one wants to be seriously ill. I am choosing my words carefully here, but these situations are determined by fate, just like job losses due to a lack of work. Our request is very simple. We want people who are seriously ill to have comparable insurance to people who lose their jobs because of a lack of work. The cause is the same in both cases, namely fate, or a situation that is completely out of their control.

That term should be added to our considerations so that we can avoid all kinds of comments, analyses, studies and consultations that will just further delay the process for people who need help now, who need help tomorrow.

Let us think about that for a moment. How is it possible that a worker who voluntarily leaves their job to take care of a loved one with a serious illness will receive better EI benefits than the person who is actually ill? It is almost embarrassing.

Émilie Sansfaçon can currently only receive 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits for her serious illness, or only 26 weeks going forward. Her sister and her spouse are entitled to the same benefits, although they are not the ones who are sick. It is fundamentally illogical.

Today, I am calling on the House to apply logic. It is not easy to look Émilie in the eye and tell her that, under the law, she has only 15 weeks to recover, or 26 weeks at most, as the other side of the House is proposing. Émilie is fighting for her life, for her young children, and is struggling with difficult treatments all while fighting for what we are fighting for here today, when she should be dedicating all of her time to recovering. She has taken up this cause because she knows that she is not alone and that there will be others.

While we are debating this issue in the House, Émilie is looking at her calendar to determine when the easiest time will be between her chemotherapy treatments so she can organize another fundraiser to raise enough money to get her through the next month. This is what she is doing while we talk here and while some members push for more studies. Émilie is looking for a time in her calendar when she will not be too nauseated or too exhausted to organize a fundraiser so her friends can help her pay her bills.

I challenge any member of the House to look her in the eye and tell her that we did nothing or that we did only part of what we should have done.

That is not the issue. Today, we can work together to show the people of Quebec and Canada that, when people are sick and lacking funds, we can come to a consensus that will serve the voters who elected us.

Who here can prove that 15 weeks at 50% of a person's salary is enough to cover their needs and the needs of their children, if applicable, for the duration of a treatment if that involves 26 biweekly chemotherapy treatments, as in Émilie's case?

Math is not my strong suit, but, if my calculations are correct, that adds up to 52 weeks. For those who have suggested that 50 weeks is a random number, that is a concrete example of why it is realistic. It will take Émilie 52 weeks to get well. Would anyone in the House like to try showing me mathematically how Émilie can manage financially with 15 weeks or 26 weeks? If anyone can prove that to me, I urge them to rise now, and I will give them the floor.

We are elected legislators. We have the right and the duty to consider and implement fair and equitable laws without letting sentimentality or compassion impede our judgment. However, I sincerely believe that no one is indifferent when it comes to employment insurance for people who have a serious illness, such as cancer in particular. I have not seen anyone who is indifferent. We all know that we cannot put aside the fundamentally human aspect of this subject. So be it.

For once, let us add a little compassion to this exercise. Let us draw on our better selves and vote in favour of the Bloc Québécois motion that calls for fairness and justice for workers who meet all the insurability criteria and who are perfectly entitled to those benefits.

Let us not forget that the people who are currently sick and their employers paid into the employment insurance fund. It is their money. They participated in the collective contribution exercise so that anyone in need can get the appropriate employment insurance sickness benefits, that is to say, a minimum of 50 weeks of benefits.

Since taxpayers are the ones who contribute to the employment insurance fund, it is self-sustaining, particularly in a situation of almost full employment. This will have no real financial impact on the public purse.

Given that this request has been raised repeatedly in the past, that the Employment Insurance Act requires several adjustments adapted to today's realities, and that it has not changed in 40 years, I am appealing to the deep conscience of every member of the House to help Émilie Sansfaçon and Marie-Hélène Dubé, as well as every Michel, Yvon, Stéphane, Olivier, Julie, Violette, Fernand, Gérald, Pierrette, my uncle, my aunt, and my neighbour weather the storm of illness and hope for the peace of mind that will aid in their recovery.

All of this because we in the House had the wonderful idea of setting our differences aside and voting in favour of a motion that will enable them to live every moment, good or bad, in serenity, fairness and justice.

[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, Liberals have shown a great deal of compassion. Not only have we shown compassion, we have actually delivered on the issue. We hear a lot about health care. We have record amounts of money, hundreds of millions of additional dollars, invested in health care in every region of our country. We have seen tens of millions invested specifically into cancer and what we can do to minimize that disease.

On the issue of employment insurance with respect to sickness, the member makes reference to years. For the first time, we have a government that is now looking at increasing it from 15 weeks to half a year. That is significant.

Would the member agree that the initiatives that are being talked about and taken are good for Canadians, no matter where they live in the country?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

I agree with my colleague that concrete efforts have been made. These remarkable efforts have indeed helped change the situation for certain workers. I said “certain workers” because those changes do not help all workers. It is on a case-by-case basis. It can be said that some things have been done, and I am very pleased.

However, I want to reiterate something I said for my colleague's benefit. I suggest that he try getting 26 chemotherapy treatments, one treatment every two weeks, and see whether 50% of his salary is enough for a family with two children to live on for 26 weeks.

I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the areas I have tried to highlight is the importance of having factual information during this debate. The Bloc referenced the issue of seasonal workers and said that seasonal workers get 50 weeks of EI. That is not the case, and that is not the only issue in terms of factual information.

When I talk about that, I like to think it reinforces the need for us not to just say yes to the half-year but that maybe there is room for us to grow, and one of the ways we can do that is by talking about the facts in committee and looking at the data. Many Bloc members talked about the importance of the data. Would the member not agree that we should be looking at the issue in a standing committee also?

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

Madam Speaker, many matters can be referred to committees, but they are not as urgent.

Seasonal workers were mentioned earlier. I have known seasonal work very well for the past 30 years. I can assure my colleague that there are eligibility criteria for employment insurance. When a seasonal or full-time worker meets the criteria for their region and unemployment rate, they are entitled to a full 50 weeks of benefits. Seasonal worker or not, if they have worked a certain number of hours over a certain period of time, they are entitled to 50 weeks of benefits. I promise you that is true.

Committees can look at the details. In my speech, I mentioned the spring gap and commended the steps that were undertaken with the pilot project. It had a positive impact in my region, and the gap was starting to close a little.

Another very interesting project is on the horizon. It encourages workers to specialize in their area of expertise or to explore a different field. Employers pay them and get reimbursed by the government.

Those are projects that you brought forward. We applaud them, and we thank you for them. Nevertheless, many aspects of employment insurance can be improved. What we want to do today, as a matter of the utmost urgency, is to enable sick people to buy food and clothing and keep a decent roof over their heads. We are not asking for charity. This is taxpayers' money. In fact, we are all quite happy to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but her time is up. I tried to give her a bit more time so that she could finish her sentence.

I would also remind her that she must address her comments through the Chair and not directly to other members.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to the motion today before the House. I will be sharing my time with the member for Alfred-Pellan and I certainly want to acknowledge the member opposite who brought forward this motion for debate. It is a very important motion. I would also like to acknowledge all of the members in this House who rose today to participate in debate.

I first want to say that unemployment insurance benefits, or employment insurance, as we call it these days, is a critical program to workers all across Canada. Anyone who represents a rural riding in the north realizes how very critical that program is, not just for seasonal workers but for all people who need income during times of work loss.

This particular issue is one that hits at the heart and the home of many parliamentarians. All of us at some point in our careers have had to deal with families and family members going through sicknesses and illnesses who needed to take time off and take leave from their jobs to be able to care for themselves or someone they love.

We also know that the employment insurance program in Canada is a last resort for many. We know that, and we have recognized it as a government. In the time we have been in office in this chamber as the Government of Canada, our party has introduced and made fundamental changes to the employment insurance program to be able to protect workers and their families. We know how important it is, and therefore we have been able to reflect upon their requests and their needs and what is in their best interests.

We also know that many times workers cannot help the fact that they lose their jobs, get sick or have others around them who need their care. Therefore, having that support program is critical to them and the people they love.

In the 2018 budget, we were able to ensure that not only did we have an EI program there for Canadians when they needed it, but we also extended the period that people could work while on a claim, which helped so many families in Canada. It allowed maternity and sick benefits so that mothers who were dealing with an illness or injury would have greater flexibility and could pace their return to work in a way that was better suited to them. The EI benefit program allowed them to do that.

We also introduced a new five-week employment insurance, a shared parental benefit, and I know many families in my riding who have used that benefit, along with families in ridings represented by others here. It gave both parents the opportunity to share some of that parental leave when they most needed to be with their young children.

We also know these proposed new benefits, which did not exist before, are going to provide for greater flexibility, especially to the moms, and allow them to have that ability to choose when they return to work and to be able to adapt to a schedule that met their family's needs.

In 2017, we also introduced a new EI caregiving benefit. That benefit was well debated, not only in the House but also among our caucus and among Canadians. At the time, there was no benefit for those who had aging parents or family members who needed care, and they could not take leave to provide it. We made way for the 15 weeks, which allowed them temporary leave from their work to support a family member who was critically ill or injured.

That program is working. We have had many conversations with Canadians about how we can provide more improvements in that program and be more accommodating to them. That is why we continue to consult: It is so that we can improve the programs and benefits we provide.

We also have seen many parents of critically ill children who have been able to collect up to 35 weeks of benefits at a time when they needed it most in their lives. That program has been extended to very many Canadian families at a time when they were in dire straits and in a situation no family would want to be in.

I know that our government also took many steps to improve the EI program as it related to seasonal workers. I hear my colleague talking about the black hole in the EI program. Those of us who represent seasonal industries and workers in seasonal industries know all too well what that means. We also know that there are ways to bridge that gap, and we can do it under certain reforms of this program. We announced a pilot project last year in certain regions of Canada. We have been testing how those benefits can best work, but we need to continue to provide those reliable supports for seasonal workers. In order to do that, we will continue to work with them and discuss with them ways we can improve the program. We will continue to collect the data we need to ensure that we are putting the right programs in place.

I know that many health advocates out there, including the Canadian Cancer Society, have called for longer terms for EI sickness and EI benefits in order to better support those individuals and families who have longer recovery periods from illness. I am a cancer survivor. I went through surgery. I went through six months of chemotherapy. I went through radiation treatment. I was in a position where I did not have to turn to EI benefits, and I was very fortunate. That was because I had a job that allowed me to transition through that period in my life. However, it was also in that period in my life that I met many families that were having tremendous difficulty navigating through a serious illness, having to take leave from their jobs and the financial pressure that went along with it. It was during that time that I started to advocate for changes in the EI program. I am proud to say that today our government will move from 15 to 26 weeks to allow for extended benefits to families that need it.

I think what we have here today is a recognition, both by the Bloc and by our government, of that need existing out there, and a recognition that families are looking to us for that support, that compassion and that endorsement at that particular time in their life. I think where we disagree is on the number of weeks that should be provided, whether it should be 26 weeks, 15 weeks, 20 weeks or 50 weeks, whatever the case may be. However, if we look at the analysis that was done by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, we are falling in line with their recommendation to extend benefits to 26 weeks for Canadian families.

One of the saddest situations I ran into at that particular time, and a situation that I continue to run into in my riding, is families with sick children. In my case, in the north where I live, these children have to be flown out for treatment, to go to hospitals and to have tests done. If they are diagnosed with a serious illness or a disease that requires several weeks of treatment, the parents are required to take leave from work and to live away from home, so financial stress comes into the equation, along with the stress of caring for their children.

That is why we have recognized that situation. We have recognized it, and it is the reason we are allowing for the 26-week benefit period. It is so that families that are in that situation right now, going through those difficult times in their life, are able to have the support they need. We may disagree on whether it should be 26 weeks or longer or less, but one thing is certain: The data that we have been given indicate that where we are today, at 15 weeks, is not meeting the needs of those families. As a government, we have recognized that. We have been very compassionate in the work that we have done. Our hearts break for those families.

We know that we need to step up and do more, and that is why we are stepping up to do more. I firmly believe that by taking these extra steps today, we will help many Canadian families to be able to take leave from their jobs and get EI benefits for up to 26 weeks while they go through treatment and care for sickness and illness. I also believe that as a government, we have a responsibility to continue to listen to Canadians, continue to review the programs and policies we have, listen to our colleagues in the House and the debates that they have, and hopefully at some point continue to make those programs better for all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very interesting speech. Once again, I am grateful for the gains made by unemployed workers, whether they are seasonal or full-time workers. I have a great deal of sympathy for this woman and the ordeal she went through, but I am puzzled that she is telling me that an organization said 26 weeks was enough.

What is the financial impact of a change from 26 weeks to 50 weeks compared to the economic benefits when these people return to work? The benefits will be spent and will come back in the form of consumption taxes. These people do not simply put EI in the bank. They spend that money and consume.

I would like to know what the difference between 26 and 50 weeks is worth, compared to the difference it can make in the lives of people who are sick. This $400 million or $500 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the $57 billion we have already seen.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, what we need to be clear about is that no analysis has been done in terms of what the captured clientele is or the number of Canadians we help, or the cost of providing the 50 weeks being quoted. I have not seen any data that reflect that.

What I have seen is what is reflected in the 26 weeks, what it will cost the government to provide that service and how many Canadians will be able to avail themselves of it, based on previous data and numbers. We feel that we need to make the move to 26 weeks of EI benefits for individuals who are sick and need to collect EI. Fifteen weeks is not enough.

We know that increasing it to 26 weeks will provide benefits to many Canadians who are dealing with health care needs in hospitals and at home and will allow them to have financial security to a certain degree while they recover.

The analysis of whether that is going to be enough, or whether we need to extend it further, is something I have not had access to. If the hon. member has the analysis, maybe she should provide it to all of us in the House of Commons.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is another consideration I would like the hon. member to think about. We are asking for benefits to be paid out of the EI fund. I am wondering if there are circumstances when that is really not the appropriate source of funding to provide these benefits.

For instance, take somebody injured in a car crash. Through the auto insurance system in each province, there is a requirement for the insurance company to provide those kinds of benefits for the lifetime of the person, in many cases.

I am currently sponsoring a petition from people who have been injured as a result of taking a vaccine, and there is no compensation system at all for them. Would my colleague agree that some source of funding other than the EI system, and that attaches the loss directly to whatever has caused the loss, is a more appropriate way of funding some of these benefits?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague from Fleetwood—Port Kells has been a very strong advocate for the particular issue he raises today, that many of the patients who have become disabled do not have the benefits they feel they need in order to have financial security in their lives. His petition is proposing to look at alternative sources.

As a government and as Canadians, we have always accepted the responsibility of looking after each other and caring for each other in any way we possibly can within our means. I would suggest that looking for new and innovative ways to meet those target goals, and to be able to provide that care for many Canadians, is a direction in which we need to look.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, today I am rising to speak to an issue that is important to me, one that affects many Canadians and is a principal part of Canada's social safety net. I am talking about employment insurance and the special benefits for workers who have to take leave for specific events, such as an illness, a pregnancy, caring for a newborn, helping a seriously ill or injured individual, or providing end-of-life care to a family member.

Founded on compassion and fairness, this system reflects an important part of the Canadian identity, which is steeped in sharing and helping one another. The principles governing this system tie in perfectly with the values of our government.

Many Canadians across the country struggle with illness. For some, the illness lasts a week or two, but for others, it lasts several weeks and, in some cases, for months or even years.

In many cases, the sick person has to take time off work to undergo suitable treatment. In some cases, it goes even further, and the person ends up unable to work. This leads to a marked decline in income or even the loss of that income.

To remedy this situation, the employment insurance program guarantees the payment of a maximum of 15 weeks of sickness benefits to people who are unable to work.

We certainly recognize that although EI sickness benefits protect a large number of Canadians, some recipients exhaust their benefits before returning to work. I went through this myself exactly seven years ago, so I understand very well how difficult and distressing this situation can be. That is precisely why I am very proud of our government's commitment to making changes to this program.

When we are ill or injured, the last thing we want to worry about is how we will put food on the table if we cannot go to work.

Rest assured that our government is determined to improve the EI program to make it more flexible, more inclusive and easier to access. In fact, we supported Motion No. 201 concerning employment insurance sickness benefits. The motion called on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development, and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to study this issue.

As part of this study, the committee examined the possibility of increasing the maximum number of weeks of employment insurance sickness benefits in order to support people suffering from long-term illnesses.

Our government went further than this motion called for and proposed increasing EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks to better support workers who need more time to recover.

This commitment is consistent with our hard work over the past four years to modernize the employment insurance system and take concrete steps to improve it for Canadians.

The Government of Canada has long recognized that Canadians who cannot work because of illness, injury or other family responsibilities face certain challenges.

In budget 2017, the Government of Canada announced support for parents and caregivers by providing benefits that would be more flexible, more inclusive, easier to access and more responsive to their unique family and work circumstances. These changes to maternity, parental and caregiver benefits came into effect on December 3, 2017. We are proud that these changes are helping Canadians, but there is always room for improvement.

In budget 2018, our government announced that the provisions of the working while on claim pilot project would be extended to EI maternity and sickness benefits. This measure was implemented to ensure that Canadians who want to return to work after an illness or the birth of a child can do so without jeopardizing their EI benefits. These changes came into effect in August 2018.

Our government recognizes that there is still work to be done to protect the most vulnerable Canadians. Health problems are stressful enough without the added burden of unnecessary financial hardship.

It is our responsibility as a government to ensure that Canadians receive the support they need when they are recovering from an illness or injury. We owe it to Canadians who have to take time off work for illness, injury or quarantine reasons to extend the EI sickness benefit.

Let me be clear. The government is determined to improve the EI system. We want to adapt it to better reflect Canadians' reality. In fact, our government has made changes to give Canadians the support they need when they are sick, injured or quarantined.

I would also like to note that there are other measures besides EI to help Canadians grappling with a chronic or long-term illness. They include disability benefits under the Canada pension plan, the benefits offered by private insurance and paid by the employer, as well as the help provided by the provinces and territories.

We care about Canadians' well-being. We will continue to work hard to support those who are suffering from a long-term illness or injury, as well as their family.

[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, throughout the day we have had a very interesting debate. It was interesting to hear the perspective of the Conservatives, which seemed to be more staying the course at 15 weeks, but encouraging that it be studied. The Bloc and the NDP seemed to be saying yes to the 50 weeks.

It is important for us to recognize that for many years there was absolutely no change. For the first time, we are seeing a significant commitment to make the change from 15 weeks to half a year. I believe that demonstrates a great deal of goodwill. We have stakeholders who have been asking for 26 weeks, including the Canadian Cancer Society.

I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on how important it is that, after many years, we finally have a government that is advancing. This is not the first time we have made changes to the EI program. Virtually from year two, we have seen some significant changes since we became government back in 2015.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

He is quite right. Our government is keeping the promise it made to Canadian workers and is committed to expanding EI sickness benefits by increasing them from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. This commitment builds on our hard work over the past four years. During that time, we modernized employment insurance and took concrete steps to improve this program for Canadians.

I will talk about some of the changes that we have made since 2015. We reduced the waiting period from two weeks to one. We introduced a new benefit for caregivers. We made the working while on claim provisions permanent and expanded them to include people receiving maternity and sickness benefits. We created new EI provisions for workers in seasonal industries, and so forth. Yes, much has been done. There is certainly much more to be done. We believe in realistic, achievable measures.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I think he sees the glass half full as opposed to half empty right now. People are suffering. They do not have access to the employment insurance they need. The NDP does not understand why the government refuses to grant 50 weeks of EI sickness benefits, when those additional weeks would fill a desperate need.

People like Marie-Hélène Dubé have been fighting for this for years. She got more than 600,000 signatures from Quebeckers who support this measure. It would not cost the system much, and it is not even the government's money. This money belongs to the workers.

One thing that has not changed since the Liberals came to power is the access rate to the existing system. One hundred per cent of workers contribute to employment insurance and less than 40% of unemployed workers have access to EI benefits. Whether the Conservatives or Liberals are in power, nothing changes.

What can my colleague do and what will he do to ensure that all unemployed workers have access to the EI system?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

It is not a matter of seeing the glass half empty or half full. I had my own experience with cancer, and it is not easy. I must say that our government believes in realistic, achievable measures. Our positions are based on consultations and on feedback from stakeholders and experts in the field.

Health advocates, including the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the MS Society of Canada have said that an extended sickness benefit is needed to allow for better recovery. They are calling for sickness benefits to be extended from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. We have listened to them.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Before giving the floor to the next speaker, he should know that I will have to interrupt him. I will let him know when his time is up.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, can you tell me how much time I have?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member has just four or five minutes.