Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you for welcoming me today. I'm pleased to be with you.

I'm also very pleased to hear Mrs. Renaud talk about the long‑term impact of COVID‑19. I actually talked about it in my previous testimony here in April.

Let me tell you a little about my story. After surviving cancer three times in five years, I launched my petition in 2009, which has gathered over 620,000 signatures, including over 500,000 signatures on paper from province to province. That petition has led to over 13 bills and many political promises. So you know that I've been advocating nationally for all this time to make things better. I'm proud to see that there are politicians, like Mrs. DeBellefeuille, who are working very hard on this. If we're here today to move a bill forward, at the same time, I find it inconceivable that this is the 13th bill since 2009.

I would like to remind you that the Liberal Party, before it came to power, was one of the parties that lobbied hardest for extending benefits to 52 weeks. I worked with Denis Coderre on Bill C‑291. It's sad to see that once the party came to power, everything changed, unfortunately.

In fact, it has been shown that it's possible to extend benefits to 50 weeks. Experts have always recommended this. All of a sudden it's announced that it will be 26 weeks. I find this reversal difficult to understand, because we have the means to do so. I had just such a meeting with Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Qualtrough in December 2019. At that time, it was made clear that the benefit period wouldn't be 26 weeks and that this would be inadequate. The government was to come back with another proposal. Mr. Sansfaçon will speak more about this later.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer's report shows that this is possible. Almost 80% of people who exceed the benefit period need a minimum of 41 weeks of benefits. If we set a period of 26 weeks, many people will fall through the cracks. It took 50 years to get a possible increase.

I think that as a country, Canada is missing the point. A 26‑week benefit period will mean that people will still be in people financial difficulty and end up in poverty. As Mrs. Renaud mentioned, these are people who have paid into the system all their lives.

Long COVID‑19 is an emerging issue. It is said that the government has only helped 23% of those who are ill, but because of long COVID‑19 and all the complications that will follow, that percentage will decrease. There will still be many more sick people. It is not true that we can always operate with the support of temporary programs. That makes no sense. This problem illustrates something that has existed for many years.

I've heard many stories of people losing their homes, their dignity, everything, because they were just a few weeks short of benefits to get by. Honestly, I still can't believe this whole situation.

Canada is the only G7 country, other than the United States, to provide less than one year of benefits. All other countries provide between one and three years. We are the only country that gives such a low percentage, around 55%. Australia and the Netherlands offer two years of benefits. Hungary and even South Africa give one year of benefits.

I don't understand why Canada isn't embarrassed to be called a dunce in social programs by the United Nations, or UN. What is going on in Canada? What is so different here?

In the last budget discussions, I heard people say that if the benefit period was extended beyond 26 weeks, claimants would abuse it, take more leave or even not come back to work.

We've been told that studies have been done on this. Where are they? Who did them? That's a good question, because they could never be found.

If this were a problem, I think it would have been documented long ago by all the other countries that already have more sensible measures in place. Of the current 15 weeks of benefits, people use an average of 9.8. So, [Technical difficulty—Editor] I think we would have seen people stretch their sick leave out a long time ago.

I would remind you that it's the doctor who grants sick leave and not the people themselves who grant leave. I don’t see what the basis is for saying that after 50 weeks of sickness benefits, people would be disengaged. I don’t think that after that period, given all the bills that have to be paid, a person would decide that they no longer need to go back to work because they would have gotten rich from it.

I've dealt with cancer three times, with all the consequences it had and still has on my life today, and I know that people want to go back to work, whether they've had cancer or another disease. It's not just for the money, it's for their dignity. They want to take their place as active citizens. So I think it's terrible that people would think such things.

I would also like to draw your attention to two other points that aren't discussed often enough.

First, many people have to rely on social assistance and last‑resort programs because of this inadequate measure. By increasing the number of weeks of benefits to only 26, the number of people in this situation won't decrease much. It creates a significant shortfall. There are people who don't go back to work because of this, because they aren't able to cope. There is an intergenerational transmission of poverty. As you can see by looking at the chart provided in my brief, it is passed down a minimum of three to five generations. So for one family that ran out of money because of this and had to go on social assistance, you can expect to see 1,000 families living in poverty, with no traceable cause. That's not to mention all the extra costs that this creates and that we know about. It also creates all kinds of problems when it comes to health and social programs.

Second, we end up with a lot of people who haven't only lost their dignity, but who no longer pay taxes. There is an incredible shortfall here. And, as I said, it overloads the health care system. Socio‑economic inequalities in health care impose a direct annual economic burden of at least $6.2 billion. It's true that it's not just people who are struggling because of the 15‑week sickness benefit shortfall, but it's part of the problem. It's a spinning wheel, and it ripples out everywhere. Nobody benefits from staying in that situation.

There was a study done that showed that it's possible to increase the number of weeks of benefits further, and the statistics show that this is what should be done. So I don't understand this reversal, when the Liberals are now in power and have an opportunity to put in place measures that would be incredibly better suited to the 21^st century. In 1971, when this law was put in place, people died of cancer. That was sad. Now, people survive it.

Thank you for your attention.

Transcript

Discussions (0)