Human Resources Committee on Oct. 26th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I would like to call this meeting to order, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), for a study on employability in Canada.

I would like to welcome all our guests and thank them for being here.

As everyone is probably aware, we've been conducting a study on employability. That has been broad-reaching. We also are looking at seasonal work, older workers, and the whole spectrum of what affects employability in Canada. We were in St. John's, Halifax, and Montreal this week, in Toronto today, and we're heading out west in a couple of weeks. This is something that all parties unanimously agree is very important, which is why we are conducting the study moving forward.

So thank you very much for being here. We're going to give each person, each group, seven minutes to present. We're going to have a first round of questions of seven minutes, a second round of five minutes, and as long as time permits. I would ask you to try to stick to the seven minutes. I'll let you know at one minute that your time is coming to a close.

Ms. Cutler and Mr. Gleberzon, we'll start with you. Again, thank you very much for being here. It's good to see you guys.

[Judy Cutler, Director, Government and Media Relations, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus]

It's good to see you too.

We'd like to thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to present our views on employability in Canada as it impacts on older workers. My colleague Bill Gleberzon and I will split the presentation today.

Members of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons are 50 and older. We have 400,000 across the country. We actually advocate on behalf of the 11 million Canadians 50 and older across the country. So this is the segment that will be our focus.

The 50-plus band is made up of two broad groups--pre-seniors, those 50 to 64; and seniors, those 65 and older. Both groups face challenges in employability. For pre-seniors, there is the common problem of finding a job in the face of employers' ageist prejudices. You may have seen recently in the media that Kelly Services reports 63% of 10,000 respondents 55 and older reporting discrimination based on age in seeking a job. This is an unfortunate reality that CARP's employment website, theskillsmatch.ca, finds regularly.

Seniors continue to face mandatory retirement in too many parts of the country, while others worry about the threat of mandatory employment. We hear from our members that many want to retire and others either want to or have to work. Clearly the traditional rocking chair image isn't even a perception now. Those who retire tend to remain active, and often are open to returning to work part time or as consultants. Those who remain in the workforce also have much to offer.

As in the rest of the world, Canada is experiencing an unprecedented demographic evolution that will see one in four Canadians 65 and older by 2030. At the same time, the current lower birth rate has already created a smaller cohort, or too small a cohort, of younger people. This means a shortage of workers to replace the surge of retirement by war babies born between 1939 and 1945 and baby boomers born between 1946 and 1965. Immigration alone will not fill this gap.

Although CARP does not believe in mandatory retirement and strongly opposes mandatory employment, attitudes and practices must change if we are to embrace this new reality.

[William Gleberzon, Director, Government Relations, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus]

When CARP presented its opposition to mandatory retirement, there was panic in some quarters that this could mean delaying the current ages of eligibility for pensions. For CARP this is unacceptable. Choice must be at the core of whether to retire or not. It must be based on ability, never on age. The current ages to access pensions must not be changed, in spite of the views set forth by the Fraser Institute, the OECD, the Conference Board of Canada, a recent article in The National Post by the C.D. Howe Institute, and an editorial on September 28 of this year in The Globe and Mail. Their conclusions are draconian and don't take into account real people in a real world.

CARP believes in the carrot of incentives rather than the stick of enforcement. Canadians are living longer and healthier lives today. It's commonly expressed that today's 65 is the new 45. Therefore, it's a mistake and a waste to buy into ageist myths, stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination. For example, older people are not necessarily frail, slow, or sick. They are able to learn new things. In fact, they bring with them life experience, work expertise, maturity, and a passion for lifelong learning. To quote UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on the occasion of the International Day of Older Persons:

The whole world stands to gain from an empowered older generation, with the potential to make tremendous contributions to the development process and to the work of building more productive, peaceful, and sustainable societies.

This dynamic can and should be harnessed, nurtured, and used for the benefit of individuals, the workplace, and society. Matching the skills of older Canadians with the jobs that have to be filled in broad and creative ways is the way to go. For example, we should recognize that a person can apply a skill set in one field to another field. Of course, this requires vision, imagination, and thinking outside the box, rather than ordinary expectations.

This result can enrich productivity across the country. Of course, in some cases, training, retraining, or upgrading may be necessary. Some skills can and should draw on non-professional experience such as the skills implicit in homemaking. Again, this may necessitate training.

Of those who are frail, either physically or mentally, many are still capable of activity, though it may be limited. For example, they can use modern technology to work from home . Their contribution can be significant for employers and themselves. The young and the old have a lot to exchange, share, and learn from each other in terms of skills, experience, and ideas. Given the opportunities, together they can create a dynamic and productive work force that is effective and efficient.

There are also situations where mentoring, counselling, consulting, and coaching are useful. If done properly, they can enhance the knowledge of both young and old. This could be especially appropriate for those retired Canadians who want to work part-time or on contract. It's no secret that active living and good health go hand in hand. Physically, intellectually, and spiritually, active living is a major determinant of health, physical and mental, and generates savings to the health care system. As well, the individual's quality of life and independence come into play.

Once again, it must be reiterated that we're talking about choice rather than mandatory retirement—choice based on ability, not age.

[Judy Cutler]

When older workers are encouraged and allowed to be part of the labour force, the economy and government coffers benefit as much as the individual. Not only do these people pay taxes, they put money back into the economy, which of course stimulates productivity. This is an important reason not to cut back on pension income for those who are still working. It all goes back anyway.

CARP is very concerned about the plight of the estimated five million family caregivers across the country. Their role in home care can't be ignored. Since many of them continue to work or leave work to be full-time caregivers, policies must be put in place for flexible work hours and reasonable leaves of absence. For substantial leaves of absence, we would like to see a distinct EI fund and eligibility for more than the current limited period of palliative and end-of-life care. Also, the stop-out provision in CPP for new parents should be extended to family caregivers who leave work to provide elder care. We believe that in this case “family” should mean anyone in the situation of caregiving.

In conclusion, I'd just like to offer some of CARP's recommendations for enhancing the employability of older workers.

We would like to see a standing Senate or House of Commons committee to identify and combat ageism in the workforce—and we actually understand that there is going to be a Senate subcommittee with Sharon Carstairs, so we're very happy about that; a national strategy and campaign to encourage older workers to stay in or return to the workforce, including phased retirement, shorter hours, benefits, and tax credits for training and education; incentives for employers to retain and hire older workers, such as funding and/or tax credits, again for training, retraining, and upgrading; programs to promote intergenerational dialogue and exchange of experiences and ideas, as well as to bridge gaps through mentoring, coaching, and counselling; abolition of mandatory retirement based on age across the country, including in federally regulated industries; an in-person and electronic network of assistance and information for older workers to find jobs, including writing resumés, preparing for interviews, etc.; and a national strategy for unpaid caregivers, to include a distinct EI fund and a CPP stop-out provision for those who leave work to provide elder care, flexible hours, and reasonable leaves of absence for those who continue to work.

In the moment I have left, we want to congratulate Minister Finley regarding the recent announcement of the $70 million for older workers in hard-hit regions. We were very pleased to hear that, and we recommend that this initiative be extended to those who are 50; perhaps even 45, which is the age at which human resource professionals define you as an older worker; and, of course, beyond 64 for seniors who want to continue working.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to our next presenter, Mr. Sawchuk, for seven minutes, please.

[Peter Sawchuk, Acting Head, Centre for the Study of Education and Work, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto]

Good day.

I'm a professor at the University of Toronto, cross-appointed to the departments of education and industrial relations. I've been invited here as the head of a research centre at the university, the Centre for the Study of Education and Work. It's a mix of community, union, and academic representatives who compose the steering committee, and it includes a network of dozens of international experts in this area.

Ms. Karen Lior, the executive director for the Toronto training board and a long-time steering committee member, will present just after me.

First, a word about the centre.The Centre for the Study of Education and Work has existed for just over ten years. Along with dozens of smaller research projects, the centre has produced two of the largest academic-based research initiatives in Canada in the study of education and work. The first initiative, from 1996-2001, was in the form of the new approaches to lifelong learning project, which featured 30 qualitative studies and the first national survey dedicated to all forms of learning and work, with special attention to informal learning. The second initaitive, from 2001 to the present, was in the form of the work and lifelong learning project that carried out an additional 9,500-person national survey on lifelong learning and work, supported by 12 carefully selected qualitative studies to test its conclusions in various sectors and occupations and across various demographics. All this research is available on our website and in related publications, which you'll have listed in some of the notes.

Of all the ideas we could discuss here today, the two main points that Karen and I wish to express to you involve, first, rethinking the lifelong learning, work, and employability question, with special attention to skills transmission and underemployment, and secondly, immigration, credential recognition, trades and labour standards, which Karen will address.

Skills, knowledge, and expertise are what Canada hopes to use to compete in a global marketplace. However, Canada now leads the world--absolutely number one--in post-secondary educational attainment, and our research over the past decade has documented that Canadians engage in enormous amounts of non-credited training and in fact in self-directed informal learning. There is, in the words of Professor David Livingstone, the current Canada research chair in lifelong learning and work, a serious education and jobs gap.

While of course it continues to remain relevant to look at education training and other employability factors, evidence from our research makes it clear that the major problem facing Canada today is not actually skills shortage, but rather skills transmission and application in the workplace. In the absence of effective transmission and application mechanisms, Canadian workers are far more likely to face underemployment, which entails considerable economic waste, as well as inequities, which damage social inclusion. The major sticking point in our competitiveness is not the supply side of the labour market. Demonstrated quantitatively and qualitatively, these are the conclusions of over ten years of detailed work, the most massive that Canada has ever seen, in fact.

Ms. Lior is going to address the immigration and trades issue in a moment, but I want to leave you with key research issues that the evidence recommends we take seriously.

First, Canada would benefit enormously from the continuation of this national survey series by adding a 2008 national survey that would extend the 1998 and the 2003 surveys to make a ten-year analysis, with a midpoint. This survey already can guide important decisions on where energies and resources should be directed and should be continued. Further, basic and applied quantitative and qualitative research is needed in light of these issues. Specifically, that emerged around the sticking points of transmission, skills and knowledge, and around issues of underemployment.

We are now in a position to ask and answer crucial questions related to organizational and sectoral change, questions such as the following:

First, why do our workplaces not activate the enormous potential of Canadian workers across demographics, including across racial categories, social class categories, and categories of disability and gender?

Second, why are trade and apprenticeship programs not making use of the incredibly strong general educational foundation available in the Canadian population?

Third, why are traditional school-to-work transitions for youth failing to plug workers into productive, satisfying, and innovative jobs?

And finally, how do workplaces benefit or not benefit from the interrelations between the workplace and strong communities, neighbourhoods, and voluntary work participation? This is in fact a highly under-researched area that can add incredible economic value as well as increase social inclusion in our society.

I'm going to pass you over to Karen Lior now.

[Karen Lior, Executive Director, Toronto Training Board, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto]

As Peter said, I'm Karen Lior, and I'm the executive director of the Toronto Training Board, which is one of 21 local boards in the province of Ontario. We are governed by a volunteer board of directors representing seven labour market partners.

I'm going to talk about three things: the growing gap in labour markets, which is undermining Canadian civil society and creating barriers to economic and social integration; the fact that immigrants need systems that recognize their credentials and their off-shore experience and skills; and the fact that all workers need expanded and enforceable labour standards.

Canada is one of the few industrialized countries or developed nations that doesn't have an overall economic strategy, and it's one of the things that keep us from moving forward. My taxi driver yesterday was an accountant from Pakistan who is now back in school relearning all his accounting principles so he can practise in Canada. Things like that waste a lot of taxpayer dollars. Many of those who are working in the skilled trades, such as stone masons, bricklayers, carpenters, and those who operate heavy machinery, also do manual labour.

In case you're wondering, I'm going to jump around a little bit, because Peter said some of these things, and I'm going to be saying some other things.

The point I want to make about the skilled trades is that we make it difficult for people to get into the skilled trades. Fifty-two percent of this workforce is due to retire in the next 15 years. Their children, for a change, are not moving back into the skilled trades. They've gone on to other professions. Many of the trades have changed with the introduction of technology, which opens up opportunities for those who haven't considered going into the skilled trades, but we don't have the policies and programs in place to move people from high school or from university back into the skilled trades.

We talk about the three pillars of the educational system--college, university, and apprenticeship--but college and university have access routes between them, and apprenticeship stands on its own. We are one of the few nations in which apprenticeship is a solitude, one of our many solitudes.

Many of the new jobs we're seeing are part-time, low-paid, and part of the precarious workforce. We need labour standards that allow workers to get paid. In Toronto, there are millions of dollars owed to workers who have been hired by unethical employers and then let go, or who have employers who don't pay them. Over a million workers in the city of Toronto are living below the poverty level, and a third of those are families with children.

People with disabilities have very few opportunities to participate actively in the labour market. In our TOP survey--our trends, opportunities, and priorities survey--which we're doing now, people have written in questions about why we aren't addressing the issue of people with disabilities.

We need overall policies that allow people to move around in the same way that we allow goods and services to move around. There's a lot of mobility in the world around the globalization of goods and services, but we need the same kinds of policies so we can take advantage of the skills and expertise of our workers. We need policies that protect and encourage people's mobility, as well as product mobility. In order to compete in the global marketplace, we must find ways to use the skills and talents of all our workers. We need to understand that the security agenda is also a barrier to our economic agenda.

I think I'm just going to go to our conclusions.

We need policies that allow people, as I said, to move in and out of the labour force. We need policies that look at more than jobs. We need policies that look at overall sustainable livelihoods, that look at people as assets and not deficits, and not as something that needs to be fixed. We need policies that look at how people can help them fix what's wrong. . We need employment policies that are sensitive to the entirety of workers' lives. We need ways to allow women to go to work, to allow people with disabilities to go to work, and to allow all of us to be productive workers who participate in Canada's economic growth and productivity.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you both very much.

We'll move on to our next group. I believe we have Ms. Verma and Ms. Devries.

[Veena Verma, Barrister & Solicitor, Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cornish LLP; Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives (KAIROS)]

Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to present to the committee today.

My name is Veena Verma. I'm a lawyer at a labour law firm, but I'm making a joint submission on behalf of four organizations. I'm here today with Jennifer de Vries, the program coordinator of the refugee and migration section at KAIROS, Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives.

KAIROS is an umbrella organization bringing together churches and religious organizations to deliberate on issues of common concern and advocate for social change. KAIROS works with partners who advocate on behalf of each group of migrant workers, whom we will be discussing today. We ask that you please note that today's submission is a joint submission with the FCJ Refugee Centre, United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, and the National Alliance of Philippine Women in Canada.

I'd like to note that we do have individuals from those organizations here, During the question and answer period, if you have specific questions relating to the live-in caregivers or undocumented workers, we'll bring them forward to the microphone to answer those questions.

This submission has also been endorsed by Action Canada for Population and Development, as well as the Coalition d'Appui aux Travailleuses et Travailleurs Migrants. Our submission is focused on workers' mobility and seasonal workers, who we understand are part of your mandate in looking at employability issues in Canada. Specifically, we're focused on three groups.

The first groups is seasonal agricultural workers. Those are the Mexican and Caribbean workers who are coming to Canada under the seasonal agricultural workers program. But it also is increasingly including agricultural workers who are coming under the low-skilled worker pilot project, who are coming from other developing countries.

The second group of migrant workers is domestic workers who are also coming under a temporary work program called the live-in caregiver program. These workers, predominantly women from the south, perform work in child care, care for the elderly, care for people with disabilities, and housekeeping.

The third group of migrant workers is non-status persons. They include those who may have initially arrived in Canada under one of the temporary programs and then decided to stay on in Canada, those who have come to Canada as survivors of human trafficking, torture, or rape, or those who have come into Canada for family reunification purposes, only to realize that it's almost impossible to obtain status within Canada.

In June 2006 there was a two-day conference called the National Migrant Justice Gathering, which was held at York University. It brought over a hundred migrants and migrant justice advocates who shared their experiences and identified common concerns relating to these three groups. Our submission today flows from many of the findings that came out of that conference.

While migrant and undocumented persons may work in different sectors of the Canadian economy, they do share common experiences and can certainly be characterized as vulnerable. The common link that brings these three groups together deals with their status. Their status is temporary or illegal while working in Canada.

Migrants and non-status persons, a largely racialized group, often flee poverty at home, only to find themselves in precarious living and working conditions in Canada. We suggest this can be explained by two reasons. The first is restrictions on labour mobility when they're in Canada. The second is their limited ability or their inability to gain any access to citizenship.

Live-in caregivers and seasonal agricultural workers, for example, in terms of the restrictions on their labour mobility, are tied to a single employer while they're in Canada and they must live on the employer's property. Some of the agricultural workers under the program, which has been in existence for forty years, have been coming to and returning to Canada for up to twenty years, working for anywhere from four to eight months per year in Canada, with absolutely no accrued citizenship rights.

Barriers to citizenship for migrant workers and non-status persons basically mean they are limited in their effective participation in the political process. They cannot vote or otherwise influence Canadian authorities to address concerns relating to their employment while they're in Canada.

These three groups face common problems of exploitation at work, poor accommodation, limited access to social services, low wages, long hours without adequate rest or overtime pay, and verbal and physical abuse. In some cases, migrant workers are receiving wages that are lower than Canadians doing the same work. These conditions are endured by migrant workers and non-status persons because of fear of reprisal for complaining, which includes deportation and repatriation.

Having temporary status or non-status, coupled with the inability to move in the labour market while in Canada, means that these workers are extremely vulnerable to arbitrary employer decisions and that enforcement mechanisms are not used. There are no appeal processes should an employer make arbitrary or illegal decisions and decide, for example, to repatriate a worker.

HRSDC requires a labour market opinion to be provided when a temporary work permit is approved. They have to consider several factors. I want to highlight two of them.

One factor is whether hiring a temporary worker addresses a labour shortage. Labour shortages in industries such as agriculture, child care, or elder care are in large part a result of poor working conditions and low wages in these sectors, as opposed to a shortage of low-skilled workers in Canada. Historically, during periods of high unemployment there have been endemic shortages that can persist in these sectors.

Another factor that the HRSDC labour opinion requires before approving a temporary worker is—and this is important for us—whether the wages and working conditions offered are sufficient to attract Canadian citizens or permanent residents to, and retain them in, that work.

We believe that this factor is too often overlooked. In essence, the Canadian government has adopted a policy of bringing in cheap foreign labour to perform the work that Canadians do not want to do, rather than addressing poor and unsafe working conditions in certain sectors.

In the case of the live-in caregiver program, we believe temporary foreign workers are being used to privatize the public demand for universal child care and other health care needs of Canadians. It must be recognized that these workers are providing valuable services within Canada's labour market by taking care of children and elderly people, as well as by harvesting crops for domestic consumption and international trade.

We have ten recommendations in our written submission, but I want to highlight four this morning.

First, priority should be given to allowing foreign workers to have access to permanent status programs, as opposed to temporary worker programs. If there is a labour shortage, bring them in as permanent residents in the same way that skilled workers are brought in. If temporary workers are used to fill labour shortages, they should have full access to enforcement mechanisms in Canada and opportunities to apply for permanent residency.

Second, implement a regularization program that would allow a moratorium on deportation of non-status workers who have come forward to have their status regularized, at least until the case has been reviewed. Any regularization program would necessarily include security screening, as required for any permanent resident under the Immigration Act.

Third, we recommend providing a transparent and impartial appeal process and a dispute- resolution mechanism that would be available to workers before there is any decision to repatriate or deport them.

Finally, create a review mechanism to ensure that foreign temporary worker programs are not being used to respond to labour shortages that are the result of poor and illegal working conditions. There should be regular reviews devoted to how working conditions and wages can be a improved in certain sectors.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Verma.

Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to thank you for coming here today to make a presentation to this committee.

I would like to ask Ms. Cutler a question about older workers. Some industries and companies have realized the benefits to be gained in hiring these persons, but many have yet to understand this.

You talked about the whole issue of discrimination. Discrimination is illegal in Canada; it is against the law. However, we know that people are not talking about it. When they must chose, companies are discriminating and pleading any given pretext to do so, even though they should not do this.

Would it be possible for your organization to do a better job in having companies all over the country to get the message that there are benefits to be gained in hiring workers who have some experience, given the fact that they have a lot to contribute to newer and much younger employees?

With your indulgence, I will immediately ask a second question. It deals with your comment on the announcement of $70 million that was made last week. I understood your message and I know that you represent all persons who are 50 years and older in this country. Do you understand that there are, everywhere in this country, what we call single- industry towns and villages? In these communities, it is all very well to train people aged 55 plus, but there are no other jobs for them. The announcement does not cover these people; it only covers a few industries and not all regions of this country.

What happens to these people when there is only one industry? You can train them, but what will they do after receiving their training? Even some towns with a population of 10,000 are single-industry towns. What can we do when this industry is shut down overnight?

[Judy Cutler]

We use the words “integrated” and “holistic” a lot at CARP. In this situation, it's very applicable.

Let me start with the second comment you made. The announcement in social development is a step in the right direction, not more than that, in our view. We're pleased that at least the conditions are being recognized and the doors opened a little bit. It's not enough, and that's why we recommend that it be just the first step in taking much more action.

In terms of discrimination, we live in a youth-oriented society. There is a lot of ageism in the workplace, in health care, in the media, across all sectors of society. This is why we're very pleased that the Senate is going to be doing a study to examine, define, identify, and develop recommendations regarding ageing and ageism. We have an ageing population. We have to deal with it. That sounds like a negative thing. We could deal with it positively, because it can be a very positive contribution to the economy, to our society, to communities.

In terms of making employers aware of the benefits of older workers, eventually it's going to happen, because they're going to have to hire someone. Why wait until it's a crisis and have crisis management? If we as a society honoured experience and expertise we wouldn't even be having this conversation. We have to deal with it on the foundation level in terms of dealing with ageism generally. That will filter into the labour market as well.

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

That's okay, you have answered my question. Essentially, you said at the end that we must face the reality. The reality is that in the generation before mine, that of my father and my mother, there were 10, 12 or 14 children per family. Today, I have an 18-month old daughter and I certainly do not expect to have five children. Our goal is to have two of them, unless we have twins.

As you have said, many are waiting for the crisis to come. And when it comes, there may be some 50-year and older persons who will tell us that we have done nothing for them and that they have decided to retire completely and get some rest. It is a risk that these businesses are facing. Do you agree with this?

[Judy Cutler]

Absolutely, it's a risk. It's the same thing as the provinces getting rid of nurses. Now there's a crisis, and there aren't enough nurses. You can't just snap your fingers and reverse the situation.

I want to point out, you may be having two children, or three children, if you have twins or triplets, but you're likely to live longer than your parents, and be healthier and more active. We have to change our perception of the demographics and realize that at 50, you're not going to be sitting at home in a rocking chair, which was the reality for your parents, or, if not your parents, your grandparents.

We keep saying that when the boomers came in such force, we didn't have trouble building schools or other facilities for them. We dealt with it. We have to have the same mindset for the ageing population and create a society that is for all ages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Madame Bonsant for seven minutes, please.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Ms. Cutler, my husband is 60 years old and he just retired. He was quite happy about it.

You wrote in your brief that you do not want people to be forced to retire at the age of 70. I for one is against that. As I said earlier, some small towns have only one or two industries. There are people who have worked all their life, who are working hard, in the construction industry or any other sector, and who are getting tired.

If there are lay-offs in an industry and if we let go the younger people aged 22, 23 or 24 instead of letting go older workers aged 60, 62 or 63, these young people will not stay in town. They will move and go find work elsewhere. When the older people reach the age of 63, 64 or 65, that is in two or three years, they will leave and the younger ones will no longer be there to take over, which will create a second shortage. There will no longer be any relief.

I believe that a person who has the opportunity to retire at 60, as my husband has just done, can give some training. He is a professional buyer with 35 years experience. He does not want to work anymore, because he has had enough, but he is prepared to contribute a day or two and give some training to the younger generation.

We hear people talk about the lack of relief. It is not by keeping the people at work until the age of 70 and by laying-off the 22 or 23 year old that we will solve this problem. That is my opinion. What is your opinion on this matter?

[Judy Cutler]

I think maybe you misunderstood what we were saying, because we certainly are totally against mandatory retirement. We think it has to be choice, and what we're missing now is choice when there is mandatory retirement. We get calls almost every day. At a conference we had last week, we met someone who had worked for an airline. She said when she was 64 she was okay, and then when she turned 65 suddenly they were saying she wasn't able to do the job, but she wanted to continue working.

Most people will retire. We're not even saying that most people will continue to work if they have a choice, but there should be incentives and benefits for those who do choose to work or to go back to work. We really don't promote making anyone retire at any age. If people can retire at 50, fantastic. If they want to work to 90, and they're able to do the job, they should have that choice too. Our executive director is 87, and he says it's what keeps him going. If I had a choice, I'd like to retire.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I understand what you are saying. Where I live, a 67-year old woman was teaching at the kindergarten level, with small toddlers running around the classroom. Do you sincerely believe that this woman had the capacity to run after these children and do the work? She was there because she did not want to stop working, because she did not know what else to do to occupy her days. You have to be reasonable, depending on the trade your in. She was preventing a 22 or 23-year old from coming in to teach this kindergarten class. She wanted to keep her job because she had no idea what else she could do at home. There are times when people should be given the choice, and then there are times when they should not. That lady was a great person, but on occasion she would have to go sit in a corner because she was really tired. She did this job for 45 years. I believe that schools need to recruit younger teachers. I have some trouble accepting the fact that in some trades, they are telling people that they can go on until they are 85 years old if they want to. It seems to me that an 85-year old person is not really able to deal with children in a kindergarten class. I would like to hear your comments on this.

[Judy Cutler]

First of all, I think we have to be careful not to pit one generation against another.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

No, no.

[Judy Cutler]

I know you're not doing that, but we want to make sure you know we think that.

Again, in talking about a holistic and integrated approach, we're talking here about employability. But at CARP, we also try to promote a better pension system, so people's choices aren't based on just being able to pay the bills. Pensions really should be able to meet the cost of living. We need to create a society and communities that engage older people more broadly than just in the workforce. That could be through continuing education, volunteering, or mentoring. It could be doing a whole host of things. We haven't explored that.

We hope we're going to be part of the Senate committee. It's certainly what we'll be asking for. We're hoping that the Senate report will address the concerns you have.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I represent the Bloc Québécois in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois introduced a bill calling for a program linked with employment insurance. It is an income support program for older workers. I don't know how the interpreter will translate this in English. It is exactly what you need. The Conservatives replied to us in the House of Commons that at the age of 55, a person is not finished and should continue working. That is not at all the issue, They probably do not understand the POWA system. The POWA is for people who lose their job, who want to retrain and who need some temporary financial assistance before they can start a second, third or fourth career. Today's youth will have three, four or five careers in their lifetime.

The POWA is also for those who are not capable of retraining. You cannot ask a person who has only a grade 3 or 4 to become a surgeon within six months. That would be absurd. We are trying to have a bill passed in order to help the knowledge generation, that of people aged 50, 60 and 65. You are our library. You are the people who have built countries, cities, provinces, etc., and we owe you some respect. I believe that the POWA program offers the people who want to retire and who cannot afford it the opportunity to do so with dignity, before they become eligible to the benefits of the Régime des rentes du Québec and to their pension, at the age of 60. I hope that the message has been understood.

[Judy Cutler]

Just to tell you briefly, we did a presentation at the House of Commons pre-budget finance committee, and we actually told Mr. St-Cyr that we supported that bill.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move on to our next round.

Mr. Martin has to sneak out because of a previous engagement. He's not going to be around for the second round, so I'm going to give him a couple of extra minutes this time around.

Mr. Martin.