:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair
I am very honoured to be here as a witness. I feel a little off kilter because I am used to being seated on the parliamentarians' side. I ask your indulgence, my dear colleagues.
I am pleased because, during this session, I also had the privilege of sponsoring Bill C-269. This bill is the result of a great deal of hard work by the committee and my colleague Yves Lessard. I am very honoured to have had the opportunity to present this bill in the 39th Parliament.
The purpose of Bill C-269 is to improve the present employment insurance system, which the Conservative and Liberal governments have distorted over the years into an unfair program that bears increasingly little resemblance to an insurance plan. More than 50% of unemployed workers are not covered by this insurance, even though they pay premiums and the plan continues, year after year, to accumulate surpluses in its coffers.
It seems that the contributions of workers and employers have turned into a disguised tax and that the amounts amassed in this fund are used for purposes other than those of employment insurance.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities studied this issue in 2004 and, on February 15, 2005, issued 28 recommendations for improving the program.
You will recall that the Conservatives supported certain recommendations of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities whereby the plan would be reserved for the benefit of workers.
The Bloc Québécois worked on this committee and was primarily responsible for adoption of the report. Thus, on May 8, 2006, I tabled a bill on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, which, if adopted, will make sweeping changes to the program.
Enacting Bill C-269 will provide a lifeline for workers and that is why the government must have the political will to change the system before any more damage is done.
We should recall that, until 1990, the Canadian government contributed to the unemployment insurance fund. In 1990, however, Brian Mulroney's Conservative government destroyed that equilibrium by terminating the federal government's contribution to the fund, leaving the entire funding of it to employers and workers. The withdrawal of federal funding created a major deficit in the fund at that time. The government then tried to solve the problem by slashing the coverage that the system provided, cutting the benefits paid to unemployed workers and tightening the eligibility rules for workers. The effect of this was to reduce the number of people covered by the system by half between 1989 and 1997 and to create enormous surpluses in the fund.
For more than 15 years, workers and employers have been the only contributors to the fund, and every year, the fund surpluses are swallowed up by a federal machine whose appetite knows no bounds. The EI account cumulative balance has ballooned since 1994, reaching about $50 billion to date.
There is no doubt that this cumulative balance is the result, among other things, of many changes that have restricted coverage of employment insurance since the early 1990s. The reform of employment insurance, in 1996, gave rise to a more restrictive system by tightening the eligibility criteria.
The EI account cumulative balance belongs to the employment insurance system and the government has the moral obligation to restore it in full. The EI account surplus must be applied to the employment insurance system.
In her November 2005 report, the Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, said there was an accumulated surplus of more that $48 billion. She also declared that the federal government had the obligation to respect the Employment Insurance Act and added that:
For the past six years, we have drawn Parliament's attention to our concerns about the government's compliance with the intent of the Employment Insurance Act, with respect to the setting of employment insurance premium rates and its impact on the size and growth of the accumulated surplus in the Employment Insurance Account. The accumulated surplus in the Account increased by an additional $2 billion in 2004-05 to reach $48 billion by the end of March 2005.
Today, about 40% of people who lose their jobs manage to qualify for employment insurance benefits. That is 4 workers out of 10. The people the most affected by the federal government's reforms are women, young people and seasonal workers. Of course, they are the same persons who are the most dependent on the program because they occupy precarious and unstable jobs.
With the changes to the system, the number of women covered by employment insurance decreased from 73% to 33%. They often have seasonal and unstable jobs.
In some parts of the country, it is impossible for people to accumulate more than 360 hours of work because of the large number of seasonal jobs in agriculture, forestry and tourism. The regions are suffering economically from plant shutdowns and, more recently, job losses in the forestry sector. In my riding, for example, in the regional municipality of Antoine-Labelle, 80% of the local economy is dependent upon the forestry sector; 80% of this industry's activities are at a standstill because of the current crisis.
Workers are victims of massive layoffs and often they do not qualify for employment benefits. Yet, they contributed to the fund for many years. Not only do workers become poorer because they are deprived of the right to EI benefits, but their families and their regions are also impoverished. Statistics show that the number of claimants has gone down since 1996; however, contrary to what we might thing, it is the number of eligible claimants that has gone down. The eligibility requirements are so strict that fewer and fewer workers qualify.
The time has come to give contributors what is owed to them and to stop looting the fund. The system we had in the 1990s is no longer suited to today's realities. That is why reforms are needed to help workers. Bill aims to restore some fairness for workers in the way employment insurance benefits are delivered. The employment insurance system must be updated to make it more accessible for vulnerable workers.
First of all, this bill aims to reduce the qualifying period to a 360 hours regardless of the regional unemployment rate.
This measure will eliminate the inequities between regions on the basis of their unemployment rates. This rule would also cover seasonal workers and those with unstable jobs. The required 360 hours correspond to 12 weeks of 30 hours. The benefit period varies according to the region and the regional unemployment rate. For regions with a high unemployment rate, this would eliminate the infamous “seasonal gap”, which leads us to the following recommendation: increase the maximum benefit period from 45 to 50 weeks.
Every year, seasonal workers face the seasonal gap, leaving them without benefits for as long as 10 weeks. Statistics show that 35% of recipients use their full benefits. In a regional municipality in my riding, that figure rises to 43%. According to an excerpt from the report, witnesses stated that the benefit period should be increased to 50 weeks, as is the case for special benefits. This measure would solve the longstanding problem of the seasonal gap, which mainly affects seasonal workers who have no benefits before the start of the next season. Although the government has taken measures to address this problem, further action is required. Resource regions are particularly affected. Bill puts an end to the seasonal gap by increasing the benefit period from 45 to 50 weeks.
Next, the bill aims to increase the rate of weekly benefits to 60% of insurable earnings rather than 55% as is currently the case.
Unstable jobs are generally the least well paid and these changes would provide claimants with a bare minimum. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities made this recommendation in 2005. This measure would help women in particular, since the 55% rate primarily affects low-wage earners, two-thirds of them women.
The Bill also eliminates the waiting period between the time when people lose their jobs and apply for benefits and the time when they receive their first cheques.
Workers should not be penalized for losing their jobs. Their financial obligations continue even if the money is late arriving. The waiting period penalizes workers who have lost their jobs without being fired or resigning. These workers often have a low income and it is further reduced by the period of unemployment they are entering, and which is not justified because the waiting period does not affect the maximum benefit period.
The Bill eliminates the distinction between a new entrant and a re-entrant to the labour force.
This practice is completely discriminatory, especially with respect to young people and women whose work situation is more precarious. The fact that a worker has received benefits is a determining factor in whether or not he or she is considered a new entrant or a re-entrant to the labour force. The eligibility conditions have become incoherent and fragmented. A person not considered a new entrant or a re-entrant must accumulate fewer insurable hours to be entitled to regular benefits, whereas a new entrant or re-entrant must accumulate 910 hours, which is becoming increasingly difficult in many regions. This becomes a major deterrent for individuals who wish to work in agriculture, forestry and several other sectors providing seasonal employment. It is virtually impossible for these individuals to accumulate 910 hours in these sectors.
The Bill will eliminate the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with each other at arm's length.
The burden of proof with regard to dealing at arm's length is always shouldered by the employees of family businesses, who are deemed guilty until proven otherwise. We understand that it is important to discourage fraudulent relations between employers and employees. However, it should not be up to workers to prove their good faith when they lose their jobs; it should be up to the system to investigate when there are doubts.
The Bill increases the maximum yearly insurable earnings, which stood at $39,000 when the Bill was tabled.
The maximum has now been set at $40,000. We were asking that it be raised from $39,000 to $41,500 and that an indexing formula be introduced. The current contribution formula is actually a regressive tax that affects low-income earners the most. Once the maximum insurable earnings have been reached, higher income-earners pay no further premiums, whereas lower income-earners contribute for the entire year.
The Bloc Québécois is recommending that there be greater fairness. The maximum was once $43,000. Furthermore, higher income-earners are only covered for 55% of $39,000, the maximum yearly insurable earnings when the Bill was tabled. It is difficult to pay one's bills with so little, even if it is only for a few weeks.
Benefits must be calculated based on the 12 best weeks so as not to penalize seasonal workers who sometimes work short weeks.
Only the weeks with the highest earnings in the new benefit calculation period would be considered and the average earnings would be calculated using the 12 best weeks of insurable earnings. The NDP member, Yvon Godin, tabled Bill C-265 in May 2006 in this regard. We believe it is vital that this new formula be implemented.
Finally, we must extend program coverage to self-employed workers, given that they currently represent 16% of the labour force. These workers have no coverage should they become unemployed. Premiums would be paid on a voluntary basis and the rate would be established by the chief actuary on the basis of need. Complete coverage should be provided.
In closing, I would like to remind the committee that workers, employers, the Auditor General of Canada, the Bloc Québécois and now even the UN have criticized the federal government and its employment insurance program. In an article that appeared in La Press on May 23, it was reported that the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and I quote:
—recommends that the State party reassess the Employment Insurance scheme with a view to providing greater access and improved benefit levels to all unemployed workers.
Furthermore, during the last election campaign, the Conservatives made a commitment to put in place an independent employment insurance program and to create an autonomous fund administered by employees and employers. They also supported the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources whereby the plan would be reserved for the sole benefit of workers. They deemed the practice of accumulating a surplus intellectually dishonest, and a deliberate attempt to overtax workers and their employers for the purpose of diverting funds to finance other government priorities.
Obviously, there are serious shortcomings in the management of the employment insurance fund. The priority is to end the injustices that harm workers, their families and businesses. We must quickly enact the necessary measures allowing workers to benefit from the insurance program to which they contribute.
Thank you.
Hello from me, as well. Every time the subject of employment insurance comes up, we meet again. I care very much about this file.
I would like to thank Ms. Deschamps for her presentation. Both you and Mr. Lessard of the Bloc Québécois have explained the importance of the employment insurance program, and your colleague praised your excellent work. I think we are on the same page here, since, for many years, we proposed bills or amendments to employment insurance, or initiatives to help workers directly.
I do not have much to say in praise of the Liberals, because they said they had to solve the EI deficit or the country's deficit. They did so on the backs of our workers. They are the ones who ruined employment insurance for our workers. When EI premiums rose to $3.07, there was a surplus of $7 billion. There were plenty of surpluses. The Liberal government of the day, when Paul Martin was finance minister, liked to pat itself on the back. It boasted that it had balanced the budget, had reached a zero deficit and had a $7 billion surplus. At the same time, look at what was in the consolidated revenue fund. There was $7 billion in the EI fund. They are saying themselves that this does not exist. Of course, they took it.
Now we are told there is a $2 billion surplus. The Minister of Human Resources said that this is minimal. Do you really believe that this is minimal, when there are people who still need EI benefits? The bill will cost some $1.7 billion to implement. I would say that that amount is minimal, if we want to help workers and families. Some 800,000 workers—the research officer can correct me if I'm wrong—pay EI premiums and yet are ineligible for benefits. And this is precisely why we have 1.2 billion hungry children in Canada. As you said, Madam, if these people are ineligible for employment insurance, they are forced to turn to social assistance and the burden falls to the provinces.
We now have a government... When in opposition, the Conservatives supported only eight of the 28 recommendations, including one for an independent fund—but I fear that, with them, this means privatization—and another involving lowering EI premiums. We now see that the surplus has been reduced from $7 billion to $2 billion. The premiums were cut back at the same time as the measures intended to help those men and women who get up and go to work every day, yet lose their jobs. Do you agree with me?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and committee members. This is the first time I've been a witness at a committee, after six years of asking questions.
I'd also like to thank my two witnesses here today. They've helped a lot on this bill and have given us a lot of background information. Manuel is from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, and Ken's from the Canadian Cancer Society. They're going to take three minutes each to give their perspectives, and then we'll be open for questions.
As you know, my bill is . It's a bill to increase EI sickness benefit eligibility from 15 weeks to 50 weeks due to a prescribed illness, injury, or quarantine.
When the EI Act was passed in the late 1990s, sickness benefits were provided in the spirit of compassion and support for someone who has to leave the job market temporarily due to illness. This financial support is intended to allow an individual to focus on their treatment and get well, so that they can return to the work force as soon as possible.
Current legislation allows the claimant to receive up to a maximum of 15 weeks. The time span for which a claimant is eligible is determined by a medical certificate from a health care professional, attesting to the person's inability to work and stating the probable duration of the illness.
Many of us have had constituents, friends, and family members who have experienced financial hardship as they recovered from a debilitating disease such as cancer, heart, or respiratory disease, or any other of the many serious afflictions that we face as Canadians. A persistent scenario, however, and one familiar to many of the MPs here and to many of your staff—we had it in our office—is that we have people who have applied for EI sickness benefits and have received the full fifteen weeks, but have found themselves incapable of returning to work.
A 2004 survey of women fighting breast cancer revealed that a full 76% of the respondents reported being off work for more than the 15-week period. One of our local doctors, Dr. Ron MacCormick, head oncologist at the Cape Breton Cancer Centre, will attest that it can take at least one year after treatment for cancer before the patient will start to regain their energy. In fact, most oncologists will tell you that treatment surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation alone can take up to a year.
The harsh reality is that diseases such as these are attacking people of all ages. The unfortunate part is that these people still potentially have lots of years of work left ahead of them. Moreover, if we don't enact programs to bridge that gap when they are sick, we will continue to be faced with people returning to work too early, with an inherent potential of relapse.
Too many are facing unnecessary financial stress at a time when they should be directing 100% of their energies toward battling their ailments and recovering. No Canadian, nor any of their loved ones, should be left trying to figure out where they're going to get the money to pay the rent, buy groceries, or pay to heat their home.
Mr. Chair, there remains a misconception that a claimant who has maximized EI sickness benefits can simply apply for Canada Pension Plan disability benefits. As many MPs would know, the criteria for this program are strict, and most often patients are denied because they're not considered 100% disabled. The small number who do meet the criteria are faced with a three-month application process, and there's a long waiting period before the CPP disability kicks in.
Once again, let me state that only a small percentage of people will be awarded CPP disability. We also need to recognize—and this is very important—that not all employers, as many of you know, offer long-term disability programs.
It is evident that a one-size-fits-all approach is failing sick Canadians, a fact realized by a subcommittee of this committee in the last Parliament. Among the recommendations from that committee was to increase the number of weeks that sickness benefits can be claimed. The department's 2005 employment insurance monitoring and assessment report states: “About 32% of sickness beneficiaries in 2004/05 used the entire 15 weeks of benefits to which they were entitled.” This portion has been relatively stable in recent years, suggesting that for some types of claimants, 15 weeks is not enough.
Determining exactly how many Canadians need extra help is quite hard to quantify, given that the length of time a claimant would receive benefits is decided by an independent source—namely, a doctor. The 2004-05 data, however, suggest a potential maximum 95,000 claimants would have been entitled to more weeks of sickness benefits under . Based on a 2005 monitoring and assessment report, we can assume that a small proportion of these 95,000 would be claiming benefits to the full 50 weeks.
I mentioned my supporters here, but the list of stakeholder supporters for is substantial. It includes letters of support; we have letters of support from the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Lung Association, the Cape Breton Cancer Centre, social workers of Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, and many front-line health workers.
Mr. Chairman, we also received support from such labour organizations as the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Auto Workers.
I would urge you to follow their lead and support this bill. This bill is a bill for our time. EI sickness benefits remain the only viable vehicle to help alleviate the financial burden for individuals suffering from a major illness, and for whom 15 weeks is simply not enough to get better and return to work.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's my portion. I'm going to pass it on to my witness.
First off, let me thank all parties and all members for their support for the Canadian strategy for cancer control. This is a wonderful thing, and I think this bill fits nicely within that.
The Canadian Cancer Society, on behalf of its 220,000 volunteers across the country, welcomes this opportunity to address the issue of the employment insurance illness benefit. We congratulate committee members for tackling this important health issue.
I will present five reasons to show why 15 weeks of benefits is not long enough for cancer patients.
Number one, an individual may have been ill or unable to work for quite a while before he or she applies for EI benefits. In the case of a cancer patient, there would have undoubtedly been waiting times for diagnostic tests and surgery before receiving a diagnosis, and a recovery waiting period prior to the start of treatment.
Second, once started, treatment is typically spread over many months, and recovery can take several more months.
Third, individuals facing serious illness have many collateral financial stresses, including the cost of uninsured treatment and drugs, travel costs for specialized treatment, special diets, and non-prescribed medical supplies. Temporary income replacement of longer duration would greatly relieve many of these burdens. As has been referred to earlier, a 2004 Canadian breast cancer network survey of nearly 500 women with breast cancer found that there is a significant, unexpected, and stressful financial impact on women diagnosed with breast cancer and on their families. When asked whether 15 weeks of employment insurance benefits were enough to get them through treatment, 75% of respondents said they were not long enough, and 76% of respondents reported being off work for over 15 weeks.
Fourth, chemo patients can be immune-suppressed for a period of time after completion of treatment and thus need to remain segregated from groups, extending the optimal recovery period.
Fifth, even after an individual completes treatment for a serious illness, there are many vague lingering effects, although medical documentation is difficult. For example, chemotherapy patients report concentration and endurance deficits—they call this “chemo fog”—fatigue, personality changes, and the like; these deficits impact their ability to perform job tasks at safe or pre-condition levels. Psychological issues around serious illness and suitability for return to work may be poorly documented, but they are nonetheless very real.
For many patients the recovery from the effects of cancer often takes many months. Requiring recovering cancer patients to return to the workforce before they have regained some measure of improved health is to put in jeopardy the patients' and their families' prospects for recovery.
We all bear the burden when a patient returns too early to the workforce. When their recovery falters and their health suffers, there are increased costs, not only to the health care system but also to family life, the economy, and other contributions of individuals to society.
is a good bill. The Canadian Cancer Society urges committee members to support it.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the perspective of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada regarding Bill C-278.
Let me begin by commending Mr. Eyking for introducing this important initiative, which could help many people across the country.
Today I will focus briefly on the impact that this bill could have on those afflicted with heart disease and particularly stroke.
Heart disease and stroke are the leading causes of death, hospitalization, and drug prescriptions, and are the largest disease-based cost drivers on the Canadian economy.
First, I will speak briefly about the implications of this bill for those afflicted with heart disease. There are some instances in which this bill could assist those recovering from heart bypass surgeries. We know that those undergoing bypass surgeries generally can return to work within eight to twelve weeks. However, those who have existing co-morbidities such as diabetes or depression and those who have manual labour employment could take longer before returning to work; that is, potentially more than 15 weeks, so these people could benefit from an extension in benefits.
More pertinent, however, for the purpose of our discussion today, are those people afflicted by stroke, which is more of a disabling disease. Of those 15,000 Canadians who died from stroke in 2003, approximately 1,300 were under the age of 65. Knowing that approximately 80% of those who have a stroke survive, we can estimate that each year about 5,200 Canadians survive a stroke under the age of 65.
One study relevant to this age demographic has suggested that only 20% will return to gainful employment within the ensuing three years after their stroke, and few will return to work within a year. Naturally, some of these survivors would be severely impaired and would presumably qualify for CPP disability. However, many of those with moderate to minor disability would not qualify for CPP. This group would benefit from an extension of the benefits beyond 15 weeks.
We also know from another study examining stroke survivors between the ages of 15 and 45 that the average time to return to work was about eight months. In Canada, this particular group would number around 1,000 people and would very clearly benefit from an extension. I would also point out that 1,000 people would not pose a huge burden on the EI system.
Finally, I would also like to indicate, as many of the committee members already know, that income has a significant impact on health. As such, providing income support for those who are ill longer than 15 weeks can help to maintain health and consequently further increase the likelihood of getting stroke survivors back to work faster and improving productivity.
Aside from this, we also have to remember to take into account the human and compassionate side of this issue; that is, the need to help individuals and families cope with the difficulties associated with major illnesses such as heart disease and stroke.
In conclusion, it is the foundation's perspective that extending the EI benefit beyond 15 weeks will benefit those afflicted with heart disease and stroke.
:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Mike. I also commend you. You're no stranger to the health problems people face, especially with your dad being a doctor, and with the work you've done on this committee.
Why did I do this bill? I guess when I first got elected, probably six or seven years ago, I came up here and found out what a private member's bill was all about. You find out. I remember talking to Herb Gray, and he said, “A private member's bill is a bill that a member puts forward when there is something he believes in and that is going to help people. Some make it, and some don't, and some really affect the people of the country.” He said, “Don't take it lightly. If you're going to do a private member's bill, try to do one that benefits most Canadians.”
I always thought about that. Of course, we were in government for quite a few years. Last year I was thinking about what kind of private member's bill I could do.
I had a staff meeting. Of course, many MPs here know that there are many people who come to your office with all kinds of problems. One of the situations that was most heart-wrenching in our office was that of people coming in who were getting caught between the cracks. They have an illness, and they're waiting for their EI, and they're also going through this whole stressful period.
Then I talked to my roommate Rodger Cuzner, and he was on the committee. He mentioned that this thing was looked at before. So that's where we started with it, and then we started getting support, and people were encouraging us, especially people from home. Once it started, we started getting e-mails from people across the country. So that gave us the inspiration to go. We had good support in the House with it, so that's where it went.
Of course, as you know, you have to do your homework on it. We had to get some research done on numbers. We also talked to our local HRDC people.
I know I don't have too much time for your question, but you asked what other countries are dealing with this or have this situation. Most of the European countries already have.
How much time do I have?
Of course, I too would like to congratulate our colleague Mr. Eyking on this initiative. We completely concur with the objective. I would also like to thank both witnesses for being here today.
You know, personally, I think this again gives real meaning to the work we should be doing here as members, that is, introducing bills or regulations that will help those who need it most.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend the remarkable work of volunteers who work with people with health problems. Mr. Kyle mentioned earlier that his organization has more than 220,000 volunteers. The work they do is extraordinary. They are often referred to as natural caregivers, as though it were natural for them to make up for a shortcoming on the part of the government. People will generally help their loved ones out of the goodness of their hearts, and they do not need support in any way.
However, in other circumstances, they are forced to stop working for a certain period of time. Mr. Eyking told us earlier that 32% of people who use what is known as compassionate leave do so for the maximum period, which is 15 weeks. This shows that 32% of these people needed more time. It is a stable ratio. The average is nine weeks a year and, over the years, it has been increasing by about 1%. Thus, we see that it is stable. So we are not too far off in the assessment of the costs involved, especially since there seems to be a consensus on this, I believe.
I am pleased to see here again today two of our colleagues, Mr. Cuzner and Mr. Godin, who were here in 2004 when we worked on the recommendations for the EI reforms. There were 28 recommendations. Recommendation no. 27 specifically addresses this. If we are to be consistent, we should support your bill. If we are to be consistent, we should all, including the Conservatives, endorse this support.
I want to be very clear. I have a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Lake's situation. We found ourselves earlier hearing an argument that has to do with another bill. In this case, there is no question of overlapping responsibilities. It is a federal responsibility that has to do with money held by the federal government, which must fulfill its responsibilities.
Mr. Chair, I will not drone on about the need for this bill. The question I would like to ask our three guests is the following. The current prevailing argument states that we could undermine the protection of workers in terms of their private insurance or group employment insurance. It seems to me that it is up to the insurers to adapt accordingly. They have always done so in the past, when new legislation is adopted. I would like you to talk a little bit about this. We have even received letters about it. I have before me a letter from the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. I do not blame these people for writing to us to express their concerns, but I would like to hear about the situation in terms of real consequences. Have you had the opportunity to reflect on this? If so, in what way?