SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 49

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 30, 2022 02:00PM
Context: House Hansard - 49 - Mar/30/22
Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my Conservative colleague for introducing this bill. The bill comes after we have been fighting for 10 years to increase EI sickness benefits to 50 weeks from the 15 weeks that have been provided for the past 50 years. My colleague was asked by the party opposite whether this bill required a royal recommendation. Does he think that what is really required here is for the government to show some political will in moving this forward?
80 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 49 - Mar/30/22
Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in support of the bill introduced by the member for Lévis—Lotbinière, which seeks to increase the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits to 52 weeks. I welcome the bill, but I am sorry to see that we are still at this point. We nearly made it to the finish line in the last session. Bill C-265, the Émilie Sansfaçon act, introduced by my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît to increase the number of weeks of sickness benefit from 15 to 50, made it through the committee stage. Sick workers were finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Unfortunately, as we know, the bill required a royal recommendation, which was never given. Then we were left with nothing, because an election was called. Only the government knows why it was called. It is a total mystery, like the Caramilk secret. I would never put it the same as the member for Lévis—Lotbinière did, and I am surprised he did not say it, but after 10 years of struggle and multiple bills, it is a disgrace that we are still at this point. Nevertheless, I will try to avoid giving a history lesson and instead look to the future, because this bill is fundamentally about hope. It represents the possibility for sick workers to look forward to the future with optimism and with the tools they need to recover in dignity. Supporting this bill is a matter of consistency and willingness to listen. The weeks of sickness benefits have one purpose: to give insured workers the time to heal while maintaining their employment relationship and to offer them income to support their needs. To be consistent, these benefits need to be tailored to every type of illness. Some call for more time than others. During the implementation of the original program of 15 weeks of sickness benefits 50 years ago, 82% of workers had to take more than 16 weeks to recover before returning to work. The program was already flawed because it was demonstrated that recovery took longer than 15 weeks. It seems to me that it would be logical to adjust this measure to make it meet its primary mission, namely to provide the necessary number of weeks of benefits for people to recover from any type of illness. The government has been talking a lot about science. Science obviously needs to have a role, but what do science and research currently tell us? They tell us that on average, in cases of serious illness, a person needs at least 40 weeks to recover. The current program offers 15 weeks, but this inconsistency is not new. We have to rectify this. A number of people spoke out against the situation and called for change. People have been saying for years that 15 weeks is not enough. The government needs to listen. It needs to listen to Émilie Sansfaçon, who dedicated her final years to this cause and who was calling for 50 weeks. The government must listen and it must acknowledge the hard work done by Marie‑Hélène Dubé and the 619,000 signatures she collected in support of increasing the number of weeks of sickness benefits. Ms. Dubé has been advocating for this for 10 years. Seven bills have already been introduced in the House on the same issue. One such bill was introduced by Denis Coderre and received the support of the current Liberal Prime Minister, who was an opposition member at the time. Listening also involves being logical. We must acknowledge the many bills that have already been introduced in the House and address this issue. We have had debates about this, we have had studies, recommendations and committee reports. It is time to stop dithering and get this done. At this point, all we need is the political will. In its most recent budget, the government decided to increase the number of benefit weeks to 26. That will not happen until July. Recently, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion said that it might even take another three months because the computer systems are not ready. Apparently they are too old to handle these changes. My question is, why stop at 26 weeks? Why stop halfway when we know that it takes people at least 40 weeks to get better? The government was supposed to fix things once and for all for workers who contribute to EI, get sick and need protection. There is private insurance and there is public insurance. These are not the workers we are talking about, because 60% of workers do not have private insurance. They cannot afford private insurance. I would remind members that a majority of the House of Commons voted in favour of a Bloc Québécois motion to that effect. At least 50 weeks are needed. On June 17, 2021, when the Émilie Sansfaçon bill was being studied in committee, it passed unanimously, without amendment. It was just a matter of will. The bill also raises a fundamental question. As we figure out how to live in harmony with one another, what values should we base that on? For me, it is fairly obvious. It is about compassion. Workers need to be able to recover from an illness without falling into poverty. We hear some real horror stories. Some people are forced to use up all of their savings, while others have to remortgage their homes to survive financially. Some manage to get by, because they have enough savings and a good family and support network. Others are forced to fend for themselves. It makes no sense to leave people in such poverty. From the beginning of this parliamentary session, the government has been trying to convince us that it must intervene in health, trampling on provincial jurisdictions in the process. It now has an opportunity to take meaningful action that will have a real impact on people's health, while remaining within its own areas of jurisdiction. Will the government seize this golden opportunity? I am appealing to our compassion. We have to allow workers to recover with dignity. It is a matter of justice. Need I remind members that this money belongs to workers and employers? That is how the employment insurance system works. A worker who contributed to the system their entire life and gets sick should be entitled to enough weeks of benefits to recover. It is as simple as that. It is their money after all. It is only fair that they have access to it. The government justifies its half‑measure by invoking the argument of cost. It says that it is too costly. It would not cost $2 billion, but $1 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that this would cost roughly $1.1 billion more a year. The government's upcoming budget presents an opportunity. Given that the government is going to spend billions of dollars on issues that are not its own priorities, it must be able to invest $1 billion to correct such a serious injustice toward sick workers. The member who spoke before me talked about employment insurance reform. There have been calls for such reform for years. The Liberal government promised to reform the system in 2015. It needs to happen now. There are two opportunities to take action: the budget and employment insurance reform. This needs to happen today, not tomorrow.
1282 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border