Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is with great pride that I appear before you today to discuss Bill C-241, which aims to remove the waiting period for employment insurance benefits. This is an issue that affects me greatly in my riding, as there are a number of people who are out of work. Also, for years now, within the Bloc Québécois, I've been responsible for issues of housing, poverty and homelessness. These are often a concern for the unemployed. This bill addresses my long-standing social concerns.
The bill is very simple, as you may have noted. It simply eliminates the two-week waiting period currently set out by the act. In the beginning, it was only nine days long, and since 1940, it has stood at two weeks. The fact that the wait time has always existed does not mean that it should be maintained. Some things can change, and this should be one of them.
I would like to address some of the lesser known aspects of this legislation. As for the rest, you will have read it in the bill. It is important to eliminate the current waiting time for people receiving first benefits. It still applies. If there was no waiting time for people to receive their benefits, obviously, it would mean they would get benefits more quickly.
I have here a letter dated October 27 from the Mouvement des Chômeurs et Chômeuses de l'Estrie. The organization says that it has seen the dramatic effects processing delays have had and that it is deeply concerned by them. Bill C-241 would help get rid of these delays, which are quite detrimental to unemployed individuals. Most, if not all, the unemployed are relatively poor, and have responsibilities and often children. In my riding, in Farnham or in Magog, I have often seen a couple lose their jobs at the same time. Imagine a couple losing all of its income and having to wait practically a month to receive benefits. In the meantime, people have to continue to pay off their houses and feed their children. This is really a shortcoming that goes to the very social fabric of our society.
The government frequently criticizes the issue of the deductible in this bill. Insurance has always involved a deductible. I would like to remind members of where the word “insurance” comes from. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin word “assecurare”, which comes from the root words “securus”, which means security, and “cure”, which means a framework or certified. It means to provide a state of security, a guarantee. That is why Old Age Security is called security. It could be called old age insurance: protection from danger and social security. The word “security” is therefore a synonym of “insurance”. The two words are interchangeable. To “insure” from a private insurance perspective, for instance, means “to protect oneself or to guard against”.
Bill C-241 refers to a social measure and not a profitable economic measure. I thought it was important to draw that distinction.
Let us now get back to private sector deductibles.
Private insurance companies ask for a deductible to supposedly help avoid abuses, but it is really to reduce the compensation paid out by the insurer. Let's be clear on that point.
When we deal with the public sector, such as with the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec, there is no deductible to be paid for accidental bodily injury. So long as we are dealing with the public sector, there is no deductible. Nor is there one for life insurance.
So it is simply not possible to compare a private insurance company, whose goal it is to make a profit, and an unemployment security system. It could be referred to as unemployment security or income security in case of unemployment. Unfortunately, it has been given the politically correct name of employment insurance, when that has nothing to do with what it actually is, because it does not ensure employment. This is evidenced by the fact that people are continuing to lose their jobs.
In closing, I would say this is a social measure. Using a commercial argument to disregard the needs of the disadvantaged people in society is contemptuous. That is the main argument raised to say that a two-week wait time is normal. We say that it is not normal, and we want to do away with it. It is not normal, because as I said earlier, this measure would give people the ability to survive job loss. People have not chosen to lose their jobs.
In the past, individuals could receive unemployment insurance—that's what it was called at the time—when they themselves decided to quit their jobs. Often, they would find another after a week or two. There may have been arguments in favour of a waiting time, but today those who quit their jobs are no longer entitled to employment insurance. Moreover, people losing their jobs today are not necessarily finding another one quite as easily.
You may say that this crisis will not last forever and that it will be easier to find jobs in the future. That is correct, so doing away with the wait time will cost less at that point than it does today. This is not some sort of secondary consideration; it will always be important for people to receive real support when they lose their jobs.
I am now prepared to answer your questions, but I did want to raise these two points.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.