I will make the general presentation and my colleague will be able to answer questions as required.
The CSD is a congress of unions located in Quebec. We represent 70,000 workers. While we have workers from the health and social services network and from municipalities, we are mainly involved in the private sector. The CSD is also a member of the Collective for a Poverty-Free Quebec. As such, we completely support the proposals that have been made by previous speakers.
Additionally, we think that there are other ways to fight poverty and to prevent people from becoming poor even though they may not currently be. As an example, the employment insurance program could be enhanced to allow people to live a little better, with a little more dignity. Consider the eligibility criteria that are not the same everywhere because they depend on the regional unemployment rate. We feel that they should be made uniform and that a total of 360 hours of work should qualify people for employment insurance. Other provisions should be corrected, such as the length of the benefit period, which should be 50 weeks in all cases, and the benefit rate, which should be 60% in all cases. As one political party has proposed, the waiting period could also be eliminated.
This combination of changes to the employment insurance program would result in a large number of those without work in the current financial crisis having a marginally decent income. Another measure that is part of the joint platform of Quebec's four labour congresses is the creation of an income support program for older workers.
You are well aware that, at the moment, the forestry and manufacturing sectors are severely affected, that a number of businesses are closing down, and that there are a number of mass layoffs. When you are young, properly educated and with marketable skills, everything is fine, you can always try to find a job as long as jobs are available in your area. But, when you reach a certain age—an age that we have set at 55 and older—it is more difficult to find a job.
In fact, older workers definitely face unspoken discrimination as they look for jobs. In addition, society being what it is, people at that certain age today very often left school young and worked only in one company doing one very specific task. Now, those people do not have the necessary skills to get a reasonable and well paying job close to their homes. For those people, it is a crisis. They have to say goodbye to a job that they have done for a very long time and that they have enjoyed, at the same time as they have contributed to the advancement of society with their taxes and their efforts. They also feel the loss in the complete helplessness they feel without the necessary skills to quickly find a reasonable job close to their homes. What happens to these people? They are completely disillusioned by the system and, once they can no longer receive employment insurance, what prospects do they have? Do they have to go on welfare as a last resort? It is possible.
Then, some of them have managed to earn good salaries working in manufacturing and forestry. Over the years, they have managed to put a little money aside, which they have used to acquire some property, a little house, a car, perhaps even a cottage, who knows? When the time comes to apply for welfare, they have to get rid of their possessions, as if it was a sin to have acquired them. But they are caught up in a mass layoff because their companies have shut down, for which they bear absolutely no responsibility.
So they are left high and dry; something has to be done for them because they are powerless and do not have the means to help themselves. Young people today are fine because they can go on the Internet, but for people who are 55, 60, 62 years old, it is not quite so simple. Those are the people that we have to help.
Our proposal is that, when a person reaches 55 years of age or more and is part of a collective dismissal, as defined in the Act Respecting Labour Standards—a layoff involving not fewer than 10 employees of the same establishment in the course of two consecutive months, or when the establishment closes—that person could, if he or she has worked for 10 years in the last 30...
You may ask why 10 years in the last 30. It is simple. Labour casualization is now a factor. Jobs have become less and less secure over the years and people have been forced to do only insecure work, as my colleague has described. As a result, these people, often women, have not been able to work continuously all through those last 30 years. We feel that, as long as they have worked for 10 years or so in the last 30, they should be eligible for an income support program for older workers, if the skills that they have already acquired and those required by the current labour market do not match and, as a result, they cannot find a reasonably well-paying job.
We are not asking the federal government to pay the entire bill. We have already approached the Quebec government, and they have agreed to establish a program and to contribute 30% of the costs. It is now up to the federal government to buy into a program like that and to contribute 70% of the costs.
This did not come out of thin air. In the 1970s, programs already existed for textile and clothing workers. Later, the idea spread to asbestos and to regions coping with economic difficulty, but that was abolished in 1997. The idea could be revived as a new income support program for older workers.
That would allow them to live with dignity until the normal retirement age of 65, without being forced to get rid of their little nest egg and to feel inadequate because they do not have the means and the knowledge to be able to find a job worthy of the name close to their home.
There is also the whole question of social housing. That came up a little earlier. We could deal with that.
In conclusion, the Canada Health Act is now widely seen to be of little value and people are looking for all sorts of ways to be able to privatize. The privatization of health care restricts access to health care. We think that the privatization door should be locked and bolted and that the Canada Health Act should be applied in its entirety so that people cannot start to get rich on the backs of the sick.