44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 30, 2022 02:00PM
- Mar/30/22 3:10:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Richmond Hill for his important question and his advocacy with respect to chronic homelessness.
We understand as a government that the pandemic has made worse existing housing challenges for Canada's most vulnerable people. That is why we introduced an investment of $2.5 billion through the rapid housing initiative to create over 10,000 new permanent affordable homes and provided $567 million to Reaching Home, so that frontline organization like the the member mentioned can fight homelessness and end chronic homelessness on the ground. On this side of the House, we are committed to ending chronic homelessness once and for all.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that I rise in the House to say that I agree with the member for Lévis—Lotbinière, but it does happen. I will warn you, however, that I may not make it a habit.
I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for her earlier comments.
I believe that we can perhaps arrive at a consensus, even though it may not be unanimous, on the need to move forward with this bill. Many, if not all, political parties in the House have introduced a similar bill at some point in time. I believe that getting this consensus is the right thing to do to support those who are sick and need help and to ensure that the social safety net is effective and useful.
Many people have been calling for improved special sickness benefits for years. I would obviously be remiss if I failed to mention the labour movement, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, and community groups such as Mouvement Action‑Chômage, Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans‑emploi and the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses du Québec, which are all calling for these improvements to be made.
Like some of the other members who spoke, I, too, want to highlight the efforts of two exceptional women who have fought hard to ensure that these improvements are made to the EI system. One of them continues to carry on the fight. The first of these women is the late Émilie Sansfaçon, who unfortunately did not live to see these changes made to EI sickness benefits, but who worked hard to achieve them. The second is Marie‑Hélène Dubé, who has survived cancer three times and has worked very hard for 10 years with all parliamentarians and political parties to advance this cause. She managed to do something remarkable when she got nearly 620,000 signatures on a petition calling for these improvements to the EI system. That is an amazing feat.
This shows that people are aware of these issues and that they are concerned about them. They recognize that the current system is inadequate and needs to be improved. The Liberals say that they want to listen to the science, but let us listen to what doctors are telling us here. Let us listen to what studies are telling us and look at what people with serious illnesses have to deal with.
Bill C‑215 is very similar to NDP Bill C‑212, which my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona introduced in the previous Parliament. This bill was very much along the same lines as the one before us today.
Fifteen weeks of benefits is completely ridiculous. At one point, caregivers were entitled to more weeks of EI benefits than the person with the illness. The Liberals have taken action, but once again they have not done enough. Rather than increasing sickness benefits to 50 or 52 weeks, they increased them to just 26 weeks.
Why do things halfway, when we are being told that someone with cancer, for example, needs 50 or 52 weeks?
Recovery can take 35 to 40 weeks. The average is 41 weeks. Why not go ahead and make 50 or 52 weeks available? By what logic is the Liberal government telling sick people that they cannot collect benefits while they are sick or that they cannot keep collecting them until they make a full recovery? That is not very humane, it does not meet people's needs, and there is no reason for it at all.
We all agree that 26 weeks is better than 15, but why not go all the way?
I want this to be clear. I am sure we can all agree that sick people themselves do not decide that they need 50 weeks of sickness benefits. That is for doctors to decide. People need a doctor's note to claim special sickness benefits. That strict medical framework is already in place, and it is not up to individuals to choose to take an extra four weeks. That is up to the doctor.
I really encourage the Liberals to do the right thing and support Bill C-215 so we can finally resolve this issue once and for all. This has been dragging on for far too long.
If a royal recommendation or the support of two government ministers is required to move this forward, let us do it. I hope those on the Liberal benches will find enough political courage and common sense to do the right thing. It would be historic, and everyone would be delighted. I think everyone could then say that we worked together to get something done that will really help people who are suffering and who need this help.
As someone mentioned earlier, this is also the workers' own money. This is not public money that falls from the sky, but rather premiums paid by workers and employers to create this fund, which must serve the people.
Unemployment is already not a choice anyone makes. It is something that can happen to anyone. People are victims of it. Illness is also never an individual choice; people are victims of it. Individuals who find themselves in this extremely distressing double situation must have all the necessary supports.
As parliamentarians, as elected members and representatives of the people, the least we can do is adapt our programs to meet the needs of the people, especially those in need.
We have to take it further than that. The 26 weeks that will be granted are not enough and will not meet the needs of 75% of the people who are sick. I do not understand why the Liberals are stopping halfway like that.
I want to talk about the employment insurance system in general. We are almost desperate for major EI reform. It makes no sense that for years, the majority of workers who contribute have not been eligible for benefits because they did not have enough hours to qualify. The system is completely broken. It went off the rails over the years and urgently needs to be modernized.
The Liberals said change was coming, but they have been saying that for a long time about certain issues. Fortunately, sometimes the NDP pushes them to reach an agreement in order to speed things up so the work can actually get done.
EI for seasonal workers, the five‑week pilot project for seasonal gappers or for self‑employed workers, is a disaster. There is nothing in that program that meets people's needs.
There are more and more freelancers, self-employed workers and contract workers in the new economy and in our society. Not only are they not eligible for benefits, but they also cannot even contribute because they are both an employer and an employee. They are not covered by the system. Gig workers, self-employed workers and freelancers are left out.
I was going to talk about the COVID‑19 pandemic using the past tense, but we just learned that Quebec is officially in the sixth wave of the pandemic. Unfortunately, this means that we may still be in it for a little longer. This pandemic has shown that our social safety net is flawed, gutted and in shambles, and it is clear that it needs to be rebuilt.
At the federal level, EI is a very important tool to help individuals get back on their feet. Our health care system needs assistance as well. It needs better protection and more funding. It needs guarantees and standards to ensure that people are getting good care from the public sector. We must not allow privatization and money to dictate whether someone can access care.
If not for the much-talked-about CERB and its successor, the CRB, a whole bunch of self-employed workers, freelancers and contract workers would have been forced to declare bankruptcy. We succeeded with the CRB. We negotiated with the minority Liberal government to increase the benefit to $2,000 and to extend the program when people needed it. However, that was a temporary measure, much like putting a bandage on a broken leg.
It is now time to not only increase the duration of sickness benefits to 52 weeks for those who need it, but also overhaul the EI regime. It must be done.
1461 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 7:06:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for the opportunity to provide an update on the measures our government is taking at our borders to protect Canadians from COVID-19.
Throughout the pandemic, the government has used available data and scientific evidence to inform its decisions regarding border measures. The health and safety of Canadians will continue to be our top priority, and our actions at the border reflect that. The evolution of data and the epidemiological situation, both in Canada and internationally, are what dictate our actions.
In addition, thanks to the many Canadians who rolled up their sleeves and got vaccinated, we have a highly vaccinated population. We also have continued access to vaccines, access to therapeutics both in and outside of our hospital system, and increasing access to rapid tests.
For all of these reasons, we continue to move towards a more sustainable approach to the long-term management of COVID-19 at our borders. This approach includes removing the requirement for fully vaccinated travellers to provide a pre-entry COVID-19 test result to enter Canada by air, land or water. This change will come into effect on April 1, 2022. Fully vaccinated travellers who arrive in Canada before April 1 still have the option of providing a valid, professionally observed, negative COVID-19 antigen test or a valid negative molecular test, or proof of a previous positive molecular test result taken between 10 and 180 days before arrival to meet pre-entry requirements.
Fully vaccinated travellers arriving in Canada from any country may need to take a COVID-19 molecular test on arrival if they are selected for mandatory random testing. Travellers who are selected for mandatory random testing are not required to quarantine while awaiting their test results. There are no changes to requirements for unvaccinated travellers.
Given the current international context, I would like to mention that Ukrainian nationals continue to be allowed entry to Canada even if they do not meet Canada's definition of being fully vaccinated. The Public Health Agency of Canada is working closely with its partners across government, including Global Affairs Canada, Transport Canada and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
The changes we announced on March 17 are encouraging, but they are also subject to re-evaluation as data and scientific evidence are updated.
389 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 7:10:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, border measures continue to be an important part of Canada's response to the COVID‑19 pandemic. COVID‑19 numbers continue to rise here in Canada and around the world.
We will therefore continue to use the latest scientific data and evidence to guide us as we adjust our border measures. We will continue to work with our provincial and territorial colleagues, our indigenous partners and our international counterparts.
Although the latest changes are encouraging, Canadians must continue to be cautious when they travel abroad. They still run the risk of becoming ill while they are out of the country. Canadians must be aware that they may have to extend their trip if they test positive for COVID‑19 while they are abroad.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
