Debates of March 11th, 2021

Employment Insurance Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for his comments on the issue. Members well know that heckling is something that is part of the back and forth, the conversation, here in the House of Commons. It is a different thing when members are participating online because those members, by virtue of using the audio on their computer, effectively cancel the other member's audio who has been recognized by the Chair. I think members are aware of this and I do urge them to follow that protocol properly and refrain from heckling using their audio in this manner. If they are in the House, it is a different situation. There is a tolerance for that, as members can appreciate, but I encourage all members to follow that protocol for our hybrid sessions.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay on the same point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I have said this already this week, but I think you are an excellent Speaker. I think you give really judicious rulings.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I would like to give a special thanks for your patience in serving the people of Canada in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I do not know if that is a point of order, but I appreciate the hon. member's additional comments on the matter.

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo my colleague from Timmins—James Bay's compliment on your excellent work. You have earned it. I appreciate your work as Speaker of the House and occupant of the chair.

I would like to begin by responding to the point of order raised by my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. I do not think my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan was ill-intentioned. It happens to us all. Unfortunately, technology being what it is, mistakes happen. Still, I do want to point out that we have made major progress and quickly adapted to this new technology and a hybrid Parliament.

Moving on, I will now answer the question posed by my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. This is not a jurisdiction issue, but is he admitting that his government is incompetent? The program that was supposed to help businesses pay their commercial rent was created by the federal government and is under federal jurisdiction.

The provisions of this program as it appeared last spring were legitimate, but poorly constructed. The government should have simply done a copy-paste. If I may offer some advice after the fact, the government should have hung on to the arm's length eligibility criteria with safeguards. There was nothing wrong with them. The government should have included them in the version of the program that was launched in the fall. Unfortunately, yet again, the government improvised and went too fast.

The thing is, it is possible to do things both fast and well. Sadly, the government is incapable of doing that, and my colleague from Kingston and the Islands may have publicly admitted that the government is incompetent.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I know he was outraged that people were taking non-essential trips and they should not be entitled to the benefit. The Bloc Québécois is also outraged, and we actually suggested that once the situation was corrected, it should be retroactive to when the measure was put in place, not just to January 3 as the Prime Minister originally suggested.

I did not really hear the Conservative Party offer a solution. What, if anything, do they propose?

I think the negotiations we had with the government resulted in the fact that this measure will now be retroactive to the right time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. I especially appreciate her environmental awareness, and I salute her.

My answer is that, yes, we need to fix the situation the Liberals have created. Now we need to sit down and figure out how to do that. I do not know the details of the negotiations that took place between the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party. There seems to be some political and strategic jousting going on to set the stage for the next election campaign.

I would turn the question back on my colleague. What behind-the-scenes pact or deal did the Bloc Québécois make with the Liberal Party of Canada?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for his excellent speech today.

I have a very simple question. Is the federal government capable of managing this pandemic and economic crisis without a federal budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague, and I want him to know that I really appreciate his work and his question.

I feel compelled to answer him very clearly, and I will be blunt. No, the current Liberal government is not capable of properly managing public funds and the economic recovery of our country.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a pleasure to speak in the House on behalf of my constituents. We are here today to discuss Bill C-24. Because of the government's failure to manage the House of Commons effectively, we are seeing its has created a crisis through its mismanagement. Once again we are up against a hard deadline, with benefits expiring for Canadians, and the government not managing the House calendar or its legislation so we can consider this fully. The bill before us today would expand the spending of the government by $12.1 billion. Because of how this is going to go, with members debating it for about six hours, that is about $2 billion an hour for every hour we will be able to discuss and review it here.

As has been said, this would fix a problem that is a result of the government's first attempt to provide benefits to Canadians, Bill C-2, which was rushed through the House at that time to meet a deadline the government knew about, but failed to plan for or to present legislation in a timely fashion to the House to address. That because the Prime Minister prorogued the House, shut everything down, eliminated all of the legislation that was on the Order Paper because of the WE Charity scandal. Things were getting a little too hot on that at the time, and it was time to shut down the investigations into the Prime Minister and his involvement in the WE Charity scandal, so he prorogued Parliament, which created this rush to get legislation before an October deadline when the CERB would end.

The bill was rushed through and Liberals did not realize that they had provided in that legislation a $1,000 bonus to people who had gone on leisure vacations outside of the country. People could apply and get $1,000 for the time they were at home during their 14-day quarantine after international travel. The bill passed, as has been said, because we needed to get the benefits to Canadians whose CERB was expiring, but there were no committee studies or debate in the House because of the government's mismanagement of this file. It saw a deadline, it did not care, and it rushed and made mistakes. That is indicative of the government's approach.

We are seeing it again today not only in this debate, but also in another important debate. I would argue that one of the most important debates the the House will have in this Parliament is on Bill C-7 and the Senate amendments to it. That debate is being cut short because of the government's failure to plan or provide legislation and opportunities for parliamentarians to intervene on behalf of their constituents. We have a situation where, later this day, debate will be shut down on Bill C-7 and the Senate amendments, which call for the expansion of medical aid in dying to include people who only have mental illness or disabling conditions and who will now have access to medical aid in dying, something that has not been studied by this Parliament or in committee.

Because of the government's mismanagement and failure to respond in a timely fashion to court decisions and legislative deadlines, we now have a situation where yet another bill, in addition to this one, is jammed up against a deadline. The Liberals are forcing parliamentarians to address complex issues, in this case, life and death issues, with almost no time in the House because of their failures and mismanagement. People in my riding are very concerned about this. They are concerned about the government's inability to manage the House and debate on legislation in a way that addresses their concerns.

People have written to me about it, and there is one organization in particular from my riding that I want to highlight. The Chilliwack Society for Community Living signed an important letter from the Vulnerable Persons Standard, calling on members of Parliament to do better. It says, “Bill C-7 sets apart people with disabilities and disabling conditions as the only Canadians to be offered assistance in dying when they are not actually nearing death.... Bill C-7 is dangerous and discriminatory.... Canadians with disabilities are hearing MPs and Senators arguing that lives just like theirs featuring disabilities just like theirs are not livable. This is harmful and hurtful and stigmatizing.”

It goes on to say:

Take your time, start over, and get this right. As you do so, be careful to heed the advice of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: "Listen closely to the most directly affected. Their antenna is highly attuned to ableism. When they see it, you should pause and reflect before proceeding."

Bill C-7 is not the answer.

This is another example, as is Bill C-24, of a government failing to take the time to allow Parliament to deliberate to get something right. If we had had the time to deliberate on Bill C-2, if the government had not shut down Parliament and rushed that up against the CERB deadline, I am sure that someone along the way, either in debate or as a witness at committee, would have identified this failure to focus the benefits where they were meant to be focused: on people who had to take sick leave because of COVID-19, not on those who needed to take a vacation. Had we had proper debate, that failure would have been identified.

Here again today, with just six hours of debate, it has to be rushed. After two hours, we are accused of being obstructionist and failing to do our job on behalf of Canadians. Only a Liberal government would think the solution to the problems it created by rushing a bill through Parliament previously could be solved by rushing another bill through Parliament again. That is the failure of the government.

What are we doing here? There is $12.1 billion to extend benefits to Canadians, which we have supported. All along we have supported the benefits going to Canadians who, through no fault of their own, have found their workplaces closed and their opportunities eliminated and have been forced into restrictive lockdowns. When governments force people out of their jobs and bring in conditions that restrict them from going to work, they have an obligation to provide them with an alternate income, but this cannot go on forever.

Here we are, and we are again extending it. The Conservatives support extending benefits to the people who need them, but what we also need is a plan to get past this, a plan to address the lockdowns, a plan to show Canadians there is hope for the future. That is why we have been calling on the Prime Minister to present that plan to Canadians. We have introduced a petition. The member for Calgary Nose Hill has called on the Prime Minister to use the tools we have gathered in the last year to help us get past this. We are calling on the Prime Minister to immediately present a clear plan to get Canadians safely out of lockdown. We are calling for it to include data-driven goals, a plan of action, and a timeline to achieve those goals and ensure the plan is articulated to Canadians so that they can have hope about when life and business will return to normal.

We know there have been some problems with vaccine procurement and rollout. We know there have been issues with conflicting advice being given to Canadians during this pandemic. Today we are a year into it; we have commemorated the lives that have been lost, but we also need to think about the lives that are being severely and permanently impacted right now. Some people are experiencing extreme mental health concerns. Others are not getting the health screening they need for cancer and heart disease. Other people are unable to join with others to worship freely, as is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We need to plan forward so that we are not coming up against deadlines again and again, as the government has, to extend these benefits over and over again. We will be there when Canadians need us, but we also need to start talking about a plan and the way forward to ensure that these are not permanent benefits. The next benefit is to help our economy grow and help people get past these restrictions safely while listening to public health advice. We need a plan from the government, and we have not received it. All we have seen from the government is incompetence, mismanagement of the House, and mistakes being made time and time again. We need to do better.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely wrong. The Conservatives have become a destructive force, playing a destructive role inside the House of Commons in recent weeks and months. Let there be no doubt about that. Even some opposition parties have recently commented on the role the Conservatives have been playing. The only reason we are seeing what we have seen in the last 24 hours is that they have been shamed into doing some of the things that they are currently doing.

The member complained about Bill C-24. There are a number of pieces of legislation the Conservative Party has deliberately attempted to delay or prevent from passing. Bill C-7 is a good example. We attempted to extend the hours in that case.

The member talked about plenty of opportunities to provide due diligence. Will the member take responsibility for the irresponsible behaviour of the official opposition and recognize that it is time we start working together once again—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader thinks it is offensive when anyone other than him is speaking in the House of Commons. When anyone other than him is speaking, they are filibustering. When anyone other than him is speaking, it is obstructionist. He was calling us obstructionist on Bill C-24 two hours after the bill had been read in the House for the first time. The second reading debate had barely started when this member was already accusing opposition members of obstruction.

It is this government's incompetence and this House leader's incompetence that have caused any logjams. They failed to introduce bills in a logical order. They failed to call them in a timely fashion. He is the one who should be apologizing and maybe letting someone else speak every once in a while without calling it a filibuster.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. I do not want to challenge him but to correct the record for people listening.

It is not just that the government is pushing through Bill C-7; what it has allowed to happen here is for the unelected, unaccountable Senate to rewrite the law of Canada so that people with depression will be able to ask to die in two years, and this Liberal government is supporting that. This is ignoring what Parliament stands for.

Parliament does the hard work. If members of Parliament went back to their constituents and said that instead of having suicide prevention or mental health programs, they would like to make it easier for people with mental illness to die, there would be an outcry. There would be headlines and there would be debate. That would be democratic. It is the fact that this Liberal government is using the unelected and unaccountable Senate to fundamentally change a basic principle of the right to life in this country that I find appalling, and the fact the Liberals want to rush it through the House.

They say that we have obstructed; they are obstructing the democratic rights of this House.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question, and I would say that the Liberals are doing more than just obstructing. This is perhaps the most serious matter that we will ever consider, and it certainly is the most serious matter that we will have considered in my almost 10 years as an elected official.

I agree with the member. The government and unelected senators are saying to people in our lives, many of whom we have struggled to keep alive and to keep from making the wrong choice of taking their own lives, that if they want to take their own lives, there is now a system in place for it. Instead of standing up and increasing supports for people with mental health problems, instead of increasing supports for people with disabilities and different abilities, they are saying, “I know you are not at the end of your life, that there is no prospect of you dying, but now there is, because an unelected Senate has taken away the protections for people who have mental illness in this country.”

For the government to rush the bill through and to accept those terrible amendments is an affront to this democratically elected place, and the government truly should be ashamed of itself and for what this bill will do. There will come a time when future parliamentarians will stand up and apologize for what is about to happen later today when we vote in favour. We Conservatives will not be voting in favour, but when this government votes to make it easy for mentally ill and disabled people to take their own lives, it is a tragedy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

Before I begin, I would like to take a moment, on this national day of remembrance for the victims of COVID-19, to express my sympathy to everyone who lost a loved one during the pandemic, particularly our highly esteemed colleague from Trois-Rivières, Louise, whose sister Danielle died from this awful virus.

The pandemic has hit us from all sides. People of every generation will have to live with consequences we have not even fully grasped yet. Unfortunately, the most vulnerable people, our seniors, have borne the brunt of the crisis.

It has now been more than a year since the people on the front lines and the entire population of Quebec joined together in a constant struggle to contain the pandemic so that we could stop counting victims and finally return to some semblance of normalcy.

Today, I will take a moment to recognize all of these people, the paramedics, health care workers, delivery drivers, police officers, grocery store employees and others who have been providing essential services to the public during the pandemic. To them, we offer our warmest thanks.

We are here today to talk about Bill C-24, which has two major components. The first is aimed at making tourists who travelled south or elsewhere ineligible for the $1,000 benefit for people who have to quarantine. The second is aimed at extending EI regular benefits to 50 weeks.

The EI system as we know it today has failed to protect workers not only in times of crisis, but in normal times as well. The current crisis has exposed all of the flaws in the EI system, which needs a complete overhaul. The Bloc Québécois has been working toward this goal for two decades now, but unfortunately, every bill we have proposed has died on the Order Paper. If we want to help people, we need to do something different.

My predecessor fought all of these battles a few years ago. She significantly improved the lives of her constituents, particularly with respect to EI. I salute her. I too went into politics because I wanted to improve people's lives, and this issue is very important.

I hope that the employment insurance program will be improved, and I am certain that we can do so during this Parliament. Right now, as we all know, the plan is unfair, because it offers only 15 weeks of sickness benefits. We have no more control over our health than we do over whether a factory shuts down or stays open.

I must admit that the EI system has gotten better in recent decades. I will admit that. However, there are still a few things that need changing, and we need to make the system fair. Despite having payed into the system, most Canadians are not eligible for benefits. Let us focus on the word “insurance” in employment insurance. Is that not something that should help us in difficult situations, other than a fire or an event beyond our control? Employment insurance should live up to its name.

Everyone agrees that losing a job or getting sick makes life difficult. I am speaking on behalf of dozens of residents in Laurentides—Labelle who came knocking on my door telling me such things as, “I have not completed my chemotherapy treatment, I only have one week of benefits left, I did not choose to be sick”. We saw that before parliament was prorogued for the nth time.

To fix the situation until September 25, 2021, we need to fix it permanently. The most humane thing to do for a sick person is to vote in favour of Bill C-265, introduced by my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît. We owe it to all of the Émilie Sansfaçons in Quebec and Canada. We must never forget her smile, her strength, her courage and her engagement. We are thinking of her.

The other component of the bill concerns the $1,000 for travellers’ mandatory quarantine. In my opinion, it is high time we took action, because we have been talking about it for months now, or at least the Bloc Québécois has.

We did not see any type of bill until January 20. However, we immediately noticed that it was not retroactive to January 3. The Bloc Québécois therefore asked that it be revised and made retroactive to October 2. Taxpayer money should not be used to pay for a post-vacation vacation. The tireless leader of our political party, the hon. member for La Prairie, told the government that the Bloc Québécois would support the bill if it were made retroactive to October 2. Then, what happened? Radio silence for two months.

The Bloc Québécois wanted the government to move forward, but carefully. As my colleague would say, it is important to remain vigilant in times of crisis. Unfortunately, that is not what the government did. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-24. We have actually been in favour for months. I suppose that, once again, the Liberals should have listened to us. Opposition parties are useful. Opposition parties ensure a democratic process. We need to take the time, listen, think and act; in a word, collaborate.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was very thoughtful. During her speech she mentioned some of her constituents, which shows she is actually listening to her constituents.

We are here today debating Bill C-24. One of the concerns I have is that it is $12 billion. It seems like the government, over and over again, tries to push through its initiatives, only to bumble it and have to come up with a fix.

One of the things I am hearing from my constituents, especially young people, is that they are worried about the future and the budget. The government has not put forth a budget in over two years. Every single country around the world, every province and the national assembly has been able to put forward a budget, so Canadians can have an idea of what their future is going to look like.

I know the member will be supporting this bill, but what are her concerns about the fact that the government is holding the budget secret? Where we will be moving forward to without one?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

As I just said, we need to collaborate. To do that, we must do the work and know what is going on so that we can make proposals and adjustments. Right now, we are not ready for an economic recovery.

I did not talk about possible solutions earlier. I was at the Standing Committee on Finance, and when the question came up about what we need to do to ensure a viable economy after the pandemic, the answer was that we need a natural stabilizer. That natural stabilizer is to preserve people's ability to contribute to the economy.

The bill tabled by my colleague, which we need to support, will certainly help people contribute to the economy. It should of course be incorporated into the budget that we are still waiting to see.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I had the opportunity earlier today to work on some important advancements pushing the government to take action on ALS. I admire her greatly, and I like working with her quite a bit.

I would like to follow up on the question my colleague from the Conservative party just asked about us not having a budget. We have also not been able to see certain legislation come forward, and we have seen a real reluctance from the government to bring forward the truth and reconciliation day legislation, the net-zero legislation, and even the legislation around UNDRIP. We have had limited time to debate such important legislation.

I am wondering if she could comment on why she feels the government is so hesitant to bring forward legislation that is so important to Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for her comment.

She just raised another reason many people want to improve the well-being of the community. I daresay that we all want that. We must work to improve lives. To improve lives, we need to plan. To plan, we need to know exactly what the most pressing problems are.

I completely agree with my colleague that there are a huge number of bills that have not been brought forward in the House. It is urgent that the government act. It will have to start by proposing a recovery plan and tabling a budget, and then negotiating while at the same time listening to the other parties' suggestions.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her speech.

My question relates back to the previous speaker and the need for a national strategy. Yesterday I was in debate with the parliamentary secretary for transport about what Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and South Korea have done to combat COVID-19 with a national strategy. His response was that the Liberals did not want to start a constitutional crisis.

Does the hon. member think that creating a national strategy to work with the provinces to achieve a common ground and a common strategy, rather than this piecemeal approach we have had, would cause a constitutional crisis? Does she think the Government of Quebec would work with the federal government to ensure we have protected our citizens?

Twenty-one thousand people have died. We have ruined our economy. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We are out of time.

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that members know exactly what the Bloc Québécois's stance on this is.

To manage a pandemic, we must make use of each province's strengths. This is what we have been asking for and will continue to ask for. We need a permanent 35% health transfer. The government needs to let the provinces and Quebec handle their own affairs, because many of them have demonstrated that they are at the forefront when it comes to protecting the health and safety of their residents.

I will say it once again: the health transfers will be non-negotiable.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity today to express my sympathy and condolences to all those who have lost loved ones during this pandemic. Today is a national day of remembrance in Quebec, and we are carrying a white rose in their honour.

Let me remind members what Bill C-24 is about. It extends the maximum number of weeks of EI benefits to 50 weeks for people who apply by September 25, 2021, and makes vacationers ineligible for Canada recovery sickness benefits while they are quarantining after returning to Canada. These benefits provide $500 a week for two weeks, for a total of $1,000, which is why we keep referring to it as $1,000.

This bill fixes a loophole in the legislation and clarifies that this benefit was intended for emergencies, not to give vacationers a bonus when they return to Canada. This change corrects an injustice, a flaw in the legislation.

The Bloc Québécois is happy. We have been looking forward to this bill, and throughout the fall, we called for it to be made retroactive to October 2 rather than January 3. We know that Quebeckers travel at Christmas and over the school break, so we felt it was important that the bill be retroactive to October 2. Since the government listened to reason and is making the bill retroactive to October 2, the Bloc Québécois is going to support it.

However, I still have a little twinge of regret, because it would have been easy for the government to add a small amendment to the Employment Insurance Act.

Only regular benefits are taken into account in this bill. Those who are currently unemployed, who until now were entitled to 26 weeks of benefits, know that parliamentarians are going to vote today to pass a bill. I am sure that it will pass and that the number of weeks of benefits to which they are entitled will increase to 50 weeks.

However, I am sad to see that those who are sick, those who currently devoting all of their energy to fighting cancer or some other serious disease, got some very bad news today, because Bill C-24 does not cover EI sickness benefits.

I would like to use my time to speak on behalf of those who are doing everything they can to express themselves and be heard by the government when they say that 15 weeks is not good enough. When people are battling illness, they need more than 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits to cover the cost of living.

Today I would like to speak on behalf of the father of Émilie Sansfaçon. On February 18, he wrote an open letter in the papers for all of us to read. The letter was addressed to his MP, who happens to be the President of the Treasury Board. I would like to quote parts of the letter because it really says so much.

We are not talking about parliamentarians here. We are talking about a father who went through this with his daughter, a woman who battled illness for nearly two years before succumbing. This father talks about how she had no income while fighting her illness because the 15-week benefit period was not enough.

Here is an excerpt from his three-page letter:

Sadly, this issue has been dragging on since 2009. Mr. [President of the Treasury Board], how can you keep ignoring the more than 617,000 Canadians who called for this change in Marie-Hélène Dubé's petition?

Marie-Hélène Dubé is a cancer survivor who worked hard for years to make all parliamentarians from all parties understand the importance of amending the Employment Insurance Act.

How can you ignore the 11 bills that have been introduced on this? How can you ignore the promise by the [Prime Minister] and [the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion] to do better than the proposed 26 weeks?

Just recently, on February 16, the minister said in the House of Commons that her government would soon amend the bill on employment insurance to increase the number of weeks to 26. It is truly hard for Mr. Sansfaçon to hear that since that is what was already promised in the Speech from the Throne and the budget will be tabled soon.

We are not fighting to get 26 weeks. We are saying that the government needs to listen to workers who are sick because they need to receive benefits for more than 26 weeks.

Émilie Sansfaçon's father made an appeal, writing a letter to the President of the Treasury Board, who, again, is the member for his riding:

Sir, in October 2019, I personally and publicly appealed to you during a pre-election meeting. Tersely, yet with the emotion the situation called for, you said your government intended to grant 26 weeks of sickness benefits “to show that it is listening, changing and improving”.

This response was extremely insulting to many workers who are currently fighting for their lives. It has been well documented that 26 weeks is not enough and, if I have any time left, I will indicate exactly how many weeks are needed.

The Bloc Québécois wants to ensure fairness by giving individuals who are sick the same entitlements as workers, namely, 50 weeks of benefits. Will 100% of sick workers who are fighting for their lives take all 50 weeks? No, but they should have the opportunity to take them if they need them. This is what must be put in place.

We need to convince the government and the members opposite that the 26 weeks publicly announced by various ministers that will be included in the upcoming budget are not enough at this time. I would even say that it is insulting and demeaning to workers who are fighting for their lives.

I would like to quote Émilie Sansfaçon's father on last time:

The 26 weeks you are proposing are unrealistic. Even the Canadian Cancer Society has pointed out in a press release that the majority of EI recipients are off work for an average of 41 weeks.

The 41-weeks figure comes from an analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, someone who understands numbers. He essentially said that 59% of workers diagnosed with a serious illness needed at least 41 weeks before they were able to return to work. Treatments and drugs have become so effective that today people are able to survive cancer and other illnesses and live longer lives. In 59% of cases, these people need 50 weeks of sickness benefits.

In closing, I would like to point out that the Quebec Cancer Foundation agrees that people need at least 50 weeks of sickness benefits.

The best way to reassure everyone is to support my Bill C-265, which will be examined on April 19. The government missed an opportunity with Bill C-24, but it will have another chance on April 19 by supporting my bill.