Yes, of course, especially since we have many reservations about the numbers put forward by the government with respect to Bill C-50.
The figure quoted was $935 million, and the number that came out in the media is $1 billion. It has been demonstrated that these figures do not make sense, if you are targeting a population of 190,000 recipients. The purpose of the analysis done by the Toronto-Dominion Bank and by others was to establish how much it would cost to do away with the wait time. This was a very serious assessment. It will cost $1 billion or $500 million per week. We have doubts about the figures that have been floated for Bill C-50. We are against this bill, as is the labour movement in all of Quebec and in other parts of Canada.
I was here in Ottawa two days ago, and we had meetings with representatives from the Ontario unions. They, too, are against Bill C-50. A very pernicious concept has been introduced in Bill C-50 by creating classes of those who are deserving and those who are not. People who have not drawn many benefits over the past five years and who have worked for a long time and paid maximum premiums would be eligible for benefits, whereas the others would not. There is something very mean-spirited, very pernicious, about that approach.
Two weeks ago, I was with the Kruger workers who had been laid off. Kruger is the main private employer in the Trois-Rivières region. We sat down with the people to explain how employment insurance worked. Everyone had Bill C-50 in mind. People were saying that they would receive 20 additional weeks of benefits. We asked them whether or not they had drawn any benefits over the past few years. Most answered yes. Why? Because before going ahead with a mass layoff, Kruger went through ups and downs and laid people off for a few weeks or a few months, took them back, laid them off again and took them back again. Most of these people had received 35 weeks of benefits. These are people who have paid into employment insurance their entire lives. They have 25 or 30 years of seniority. We are really against Bill C-50 for the reasons that I have just given.
Moreover, the elimination of the wait time would be immediate. It is already difficult for someone who has lost his job, when he is used to receiving a paycheque every week or every two weeks and living off of that. When someone loses his job, he loses his paycheque and his security. The person who winds up unemployed has to deal with the wait time, but, even before that, there are the administrative delays. We talked about a 28-day delay, but 28 days is when things are going well. Generally speaking, you have to wait almost two months before you get an answer. Imagine a person who has lost his job and the income he needs to live, and who applies for employment insurance benefits. If this person is lucky, he was able to apply for his employment insurance benefits immediately because he had his employment record. He will not get his answer until two months down the line and may be told that he has not accumulated enough hours to qualify. Just imagine. If the person is eligible, there is then a two-week wait time. Nothing happens.
On a personal note, I am not that wealthy; I depend on my paycheque, and I do not have much in the way of personal savings. I live off of my salary. If I were to lose my paycheque and had no income for two weeks, it would be difficult and would require sacrifices from my family. That is the reality for many people who lose their jobs and who have to deal with the two-week wait time. Eliminating it would be beneficial for the local economy. What do you do with an employment insurance cheque? You pay your bills and buy groceries. The money immediately goes into the local economy.