Evidence of meeting #78 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was workers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Thank you, Mr. McColeman, your time is up.
Let me say that we have some committee business, so I intend to suspend a little early. Rather than have a break now, unless someone wishes a break, we'll just continue for the next half hour without a break.
Is everybody in agreement with that?
Okay. We normally break at about this point. We'll just carry on for the next half hour or so to make sure that we finish the round of questioning.
We'll start with Mr. Cleary.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're studying the opportunities for older persons in the workforce, obviously. My first question has to do with the percentage of the older workforce who are actually able to work. We've seen numbers saying that upwards of 25% of Canadians are unable to do their jobs past the age of 65, because they had jobs or professions that had a huge impact on their bodies and so are physically not able to work or for other reasons.
Do you have any stats for Canadians 55 to 64 who are unable to work and for those 65 and over?
12:05 p.m.
Senior Director, Economic Policy Directorate, Labour Market Analysis, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
I don't have statistics with me. I would say that, depending on the study you are looking at, these are definitions that can vary, that depend on the study. This is quite a complex question to answer. Sometimes as well, the information will come from administrative data that's collected around programs. Some of them are provincial programs. I could not risk giving a number, because there may be many numbers out there.
What I can tell you, though, is that the working life expectancy for a worker is on the increase. For example, in the early 1990s a worker at age 50 was expecting to work 12.5 years. In 2008 in our survey, we asked the same question: how long do you expect to remain in the labour force? Workers then at age 50 were expecting to stay 16 years. This had increased, between the early 1990s and 2008, by 3.5 years.
When we put that fact together with the fact that health is the most important reason someone would decide whether to retire or not, they give us an indication that the trend is going in the right direction. Workers are healthier and they want to continue contributing, and therefore we see that they are staying longer. They expect to stay much longer in the labour market than was the case two decades ago.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
So the short answer is that you don't have any hard and fast stats.
12:05 p.m.
Senior Director, Economic Policy Directorate, Labour Market Analysis, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
My colleague is pointing to some stats that could be helpful, so I'm going to quickly go to this page.
I have some statistics here. After retirement, if we ask people why they retired, the issue of health comes first again. Illness and disability were the most reported reasons provided by older workers ages 55 to 64; 17.2% tell us they had to retire due to health reasons. For seniors 65-plus, 9.3% say they left a job because they could not do their job. This is from a 2011 survey.
If we look at older adults ages 55 to 64, not in the workforce but who would like to work, 30% told us in 2011 that they did not look for work because they were sick. It was for a health reason. You would have to add that 30% of those who did not even look for work because they were sick to those who had to leave their jobs because they were sick. This is quite substantial.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Mr. Chair, is it appropriate now to ask for those surveys to be tabled?
12:05 p.m.
Senior Director, Economic Policy Directorate, Labour Market Analysis, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
The source for this data is the labour force survey from Statistics Canada. It's publicly available.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
We will have Statistics Canada appearing before us on May 7. We could probably get those reports directly from them.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Yes, I think that's a fair point. I'll make it a point to ask Statistics Canada when they're here.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
I have another question. Has the department studied the impact of raising the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67 in terms of labour supply between 2023 and 2029? Have you done that in terms of actual numbers, what that will mean?
12:10 p.m.
Senior Director, Economic Policy Directorate, Labour Market Analysis, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
We have some models in the department that help us understand the dynamic of these decisions. These models are very limited in their capacity to estimate changes in the behaviour of people in face of such changes.
The other aspect to keep in mind is that we're looking at changes 10 years from now, in a context where there's tremendous or deep change in the way people contribute to the labour market. When you look at the current trends, you look at people who are changing their pattern of work. It's very difficult for us to pin down the impact this change will have on the work efforts of older Canadians 10 years down the road. It's something we'd like to do. We have models that can help us, but the modelling is partial because it doesn't take into account all the realities. It is not dynamic; it is static in time, so we have to use historical data to help us understand what the dynamic could be. It's very difficult for us.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Do you think the department should study that more?
I understand the difficulty, and I understand, as you said, projecting 10 years out, but it would seem it would be important to try to put your finger on what's going to happen.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
I sense we're getting into the area that I made some comments about earlier.
As I look at the motion of what we're setting, I'll read it out loud and see where it takes us. It says:
The Committee then begin a new study entitled: “Engaging Experience: Opportunities for Older Persons in the Workforce”;
That this study focus on employment opportunities for older persons and the supports available to them through the federal government....
In the introduction of the briefing book done by the Library of Parliament, it says:
....the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities agreed to begin a study of the economic opportunities available to older persons in the workforce, the obstacles preventing older workers from participating more fully in the labour market, and the federal support available to increase opportunities
Those are the specific outlines of the study. I suppose if you increase the age from 65 to 67, by that very nature you're attracting a certain measure of older workers to the workforce that may not have otherwise been there. But that is ancillary to the main object of our study. I don't think it is appropriate to get into the future planning as it may relate many years hence, in terms of raising the age with respect to receiving old age security and the impact it may have on the workforce.
That's my thinking on this subject. Unless somebody wishes to challenge it, that is what I would rule, so we're not going to ask for models, stats, or information with respect to that.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
If the decision has been made today to increase the age of eligibility to 67 from 65, I think it would be appropriate to release any kind of study that's done on the impact on the workforce.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
It's a point of order. It's not particularly debatable, but does anybody have anything to add to that? I've given my thoughts.
