Human Resources Committee on May 2nd, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

We'll call the meeting to order.

We have two presenters here with us today: Sarah Anson-Cartwright, director, skills policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce; and Martine Lagacé, associate professor, department of communications, University of Ottawa. I understand you had an appointment that you needed to make, but you've changed that around.

Both witnesses can be with us until 12:30 at the latest, so we'll break somewhere before then.

We appreciate that you're able to do that. We're sorry for the inconvenience in not starting on time.

Go right ahead, then, with your presentation, and after you're both done we'll open it up to questions from each of the parties.

[Sarah Anson-Cartwright, Director, Skills Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you very much.

On behalf of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, I am pleased to be here. My name is Sarah Anson-Cartwright, and I'm director of skills policy.

Two and a half years ago, the Canadian Chamber called on Canada to address its aging workforce. Our report was titled, “Canada's Demographic Crunch: Can underrepresented workers save us?” The reality is, we're facing a huge expected exodus from the workforce over the coming decade. Some sectors will be especially hard hit. Several large companies have told us that up to one-third of their employees will be eligible to retire within three to five years' time.

In 2011, we issued a policy brief called “Incenting Seniors To Continue Working”, and it offered a range of recommendations, such as pension reforms. Last year our report on Canada's skills crisis highlighted how employers are confronting skills shortages in the face of impending retirements. In short, the Canadian Chamber has been shining the spotlight on older workers and the need to keep them in the workforce as much as possible. I'd like to share today some comments on how employers are retaining older workers and the role of training and continuous learning. I will also mention pension reforms and tax policy to encourage people to continue working.

Older workers have been faring well in the labour market. Last year, the segment of the population aged 55 years and over posted the largest increase in employment. By far the largest increase of all demographic groups was among older women, whose employment surged 5.8% in 2012. Older men fared well too, with their employment levels jumping 4.3%.

Canadians are living longer and healthier lives than ever. This, coupled with the availability of more flexible work arrangements, leaves many older workers with not only the mental and physical capabilities to continue working, but also with the desire and the means. A multi-generational workplace can be immensely valuable to a business. The mature worker provides the knowledge, experience, and history, and the younger generation provides technical expertise.

Business can encourage older workers to remain in the labour force. Employers' interests in older workers are twofold: first, to tap into a pool of potentially available workers, and, second, to benefit from the skills of existing older employees for a longer period, including the opportunity for knowledge transfer between experienced and younger workers.

Older workers want flexibility in their work schedules, according to survey findings in Canada. Business can implement innovative, firm-based work arrangements that are more suited to older workers' lifestyle needs. Flexible work arrangements, such as part-time or part-year schedules, flexible working hours, compressed work weeks, job sharing, telecommuting, home-sourcing, i.e. working from home, and contract work can be valuable tactics to increasing labour force participation.

The Canadian Chamber surveyed chamber members last year, and 84% of the respondents were small businesses. There were 49% of them who said they would allow staff to work part-time or reduced hours as a way of retaining older workers on staff.

Connecting older workers to new job opportunities is the goal of ThirdQuarter. This program originated out of the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce and is now being extended to communities elsewhere in the country as a result of increased federal funding. It is an online service with a hands-on approach for this demographic group that is aimed at better matching skills to jobs.

To keep older workers engaged, they may need to learn to keep learning on the job and as they extend their working lives. Many jobs have changed considerably as a result of technology. Employer-supported training for older workers has been increasing since 1991. More older workers received or participated in employer-funded training in 2008, as compared to 1991 and 1993, according to Statistics Canada.

If long-tenured workers lose their jobs, they may need to find new employment. If those workers have low educational attainment, they may need literacy, numeracy, and other essential skills training before they can retrain for another job.

Community colleges can play important roles in combining technical training with essential skills training. This is part of our skills challenge that needs ongoing attention by government.

Many people may need or want to work longer. The pension and tax systems should not penalize them when they do so. The Canadian Chamber supports the recent measures by government to allow those collecting CPP to have their benefits continue uninterrupted if they continue to work.

We also support changes to the OAS program, which will go into effect in July of this year, that allow for the voluntary deferral of OAS pension for up to five years. This will allow Canadians to receive a higher actuarially adjusted annual pension at a later time, making it more attractive for seniors to work longer.

Similarly, the enhancement in the actuarial bonus when CPP benefits are delayed past age 60 removes the previously strong financial incentive to retire early.

We also need to look at Canada's tax system, and in particular marginal effective tax rates, which influence a person's decision to participate in the labour market and the choice between working more and taking more leisure time.

Income-tested tax credits provided to seniors deliver financial benefits, but as these families' incomes rise past prescribed thresholds, many of the public transfers they receive are clawed back. The guaranteed income supplement, for example, contains a clawback provision by which each additional dollar of earnings reduces the benefit received under the program by 50¢. This creates a strong disincentive for seniors to work, because each additional dollar of earned income is effectively taxed back at a rate of 50%.

Canada is now confronting the combination of retirements and skills shortages in our economy. We need to retain and equip every worker with the right incentives and skills to stay employed and productive in the workforce. By focusing on specific, concrete actions by both government and the business community, we can encourage older workers to remain in the labour force and contribute to our prosperity.

I welcome your comments and questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you very much for that presentation.

We'll now move to Martine Lagacé.

[Dr. Martine Lagacé, Associate Professor, Department of Communication, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for your invitation.

My name is Martine Lagacé. I am an associate professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Ottawa, but I am a psychologist by training. I am a social psychologist, in other words.

In dealing with the issue of the participation and integration of older workers, I am not going to talk to you about money. But I am going to talk to you about an obstacle that, unfortunately, has not been the subject of a lot of research. But, for twenty years or so, my colleagues and I have identified it as a major obstacle.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Madame Lagacé, could I just get you to slow up a little bit? The translators need to translate, so....

[Dr. Martine Lagacé]

I'm sorry about that. That's the bad side with a professor.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

All right.

[Dr. Martine Lagacé]

I will slow down the pace a little.

The research that my colleagues and I have been conducting for twenty years or so shows that one of the major obstacles to the participation, integration and retention of older workers in the labour force is the matter of negative age-based stereotypes—I will come back to that—and of flawed beliefs about aging, and specifically aging in the workplace.

My presentation has two objectives. The first is to discuss the problem of ageism and to share with you the results of the research into it. They show that there are major costs to Canadian society because of ageism, costs to older workers in psychological terms and costs to the organizations that have policies that tolerate ageism.

The second part of my presentation will be to provide some thoughts on possible solutions to the problems that ageism causes. That is a major question, of course. How can we put an end to ageism and age-based discrimination in the workplace? We are still having difficulty in the fight against sexism and racism. But with ageism, we are very late in terms of the concrete steps and initiatives that companies have put in place to combat it.

As a researcher, I have realized that ageism has been explored very little, even in the scientific community. If you google the word, you do not find a lot of research. This is the complete opposite of racism and sexism where a lot of progress has been made in the workplace. There are zero tolerance policies against sexism and racism in the workplace, and against other kinds of exclusions. With ageism, that is far from the case.

Let us establish some context. We know that workers in the 45 to 64 age-group currently make up around 40% of the Canadian workforce. As the baby boomers age, we will see that number go up more and more.

However, despite the aging of the Canadian workforce in a demographic sense, we also know very well that workers between the ages of 45 and 64 face significant obstacles to their participation, integration and retention at work. For example, in all OECD countries, we know very well that workers between the ages of 45 and 64 are overrepresented in unemployment statistics, including the statistics for chronic unemployment.

We also know that workers between the ages of 45 and 64 get much less benefit from on-going training than somewhat younger workers. We also know that career development initiatives for workers in that age group are quite rare. Most of the time, managers talk with workers from 50 to 55 about retirement. It is very rare that managers sit down with their 50- to 55-year-old employees and talk about career development and career progression. The discussion is very slanted towards retirement, which contributes to a form of self-exclusion, which I will get to in a few minutes. Slowly but surely, the worker begins to believe that he is no longer useful to the organization and therefore begins, slowly but surely, to prepare to leave it. But the departure is premature.

I would like to stress one aspect today. If there is one effort that could be made in the Canadian workplace, it must absolutely be to get rid of the logic that a premature exit has advantages. There must be a dialogue that revalues work for all Canadians and that particularly values the work and recognizes the value added by workers between the ages of 45 and 64.

The difficulties of integration have been identified. They are tangible, but they go hand in hand with the perceptions of older workers.

For about 20 years, in all the surveys about workers between 45 and 64—including healthcare workers and many members of the Canadian public service—most of them have told us that they have been the target of outmoded beliefs about their age and of negative remarks because of their age. The increasing age in the workforce seemed therefore to bring with it more negative implications than positive ones. Basically, getting old in the workplace seemed to be a problem.

If you look at the research literature on aging in the workplace, you see that the negative, age-based stereotypes have been very well identified. Let me give you some examples. This is not an exhaustive list.

Often people 45, 50 or 55 years old are said to be young, but, in the workplace, a manager will consider that any employee over 45 is heading downhill.

The stereotypes say that a 45- or 50-year-old worker is less productive than a younger one and that his capacity for learning is impaired. So the thinking is that he can no longer adapt to change, especially technological change. A very enduring stereotype is that workers over 50 or 55 are not skilled with new technologies and that their motivation and commitment are also impaired. They are in decline, basically. It is thought that those workers are more frequently absent than younger ones. That belief is very widespread among managers, and senior managers think that hiring an older worker costs an organization dearly.

For all that, we know that no empirical, scientific study for 20 years has shown any link between productivity, motivation, absenteeism and the like, and increasing age. The relationship between productivity and increasing age, for example, is much more complex than a straight-line link. The relationship between the capacity for learning and increasing age is also complex. If an employer provides the conditions or adapts the workplace, lifelong learning is possible, regardless of a worker's age.

But these stereotypes are insidious. That is where stereotypes get their strength. They are insidious and they are rarely denounced in the workplace. There is often a laisser-faire attitude towards stereotypes in the workplace. In psychology, we also know that what we believe and what we think can open the door to how we behave. To be in cognitive consonance, what we believe will be in harmony with the way we act. At that point, it becomes dangerous because the negative beliefs open the door to discriminatory, age-based practices.

At the beginning of the presentation I mentioned that we know that workers of 45 years of age or older are overrepresented in unemployment statistics and that it is very difficult to lose one's job and then find another one at 50. We know that they are less often invited to take part in training and they have fewer career advancement opportunities. We also know that, given equal skills, a worker of 55 is systematically evaluated more negatively than a worker of 35, just because of his age.

My message is a little negative, but I feel that, if we want to think about the question of integration, participation and retention of older workers, we must come to grips with the problem of ageism in the workplace. It exists because it is the extension of an even more negative view of aging in Canadian society. The workplace is a microcosm that is rife with these beliefs.

To find out the negative consequences of ageism in the workplace, we have surveyed a lot of nurses and public servants. It has been shown that workers who feel that they are the target of negative remarks because of age begin quietly to disengage psychologically.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Madame, I'd like to see if I could bring you to your conclusion.

[Dr. Martine Lagacé]

I'm almost done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

You're almost there. All right.

[Dr. Martine Lagacé]

I only have a minute left.

We know that psychological disengagement opens the door to physical disengagement. Ageism has negative consequences to which very little attention is paid. A worker who disengages psychologically then disengages specifically by preparing for a retirement that is not voluntary, but is a reaction to a form of exclusion based on age. That means that workers who are not able to transfer their skills and who leave their familiar surroundings feeling dissatisfied become part of a whole group of discontented retirees. People in that situation will certainly not come back to the workplace, nor will they stay there.

I apologize for my long statement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

I appreciate that you do have a lot yet that you would like to share with this committee, I'm sure. I'm hoping you'll get some of that out through the questioning.

We'll start with Mr. Boulerice. Go ahead.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to our two guests for joining us today to help us with our study. I feel that it is really timely and important. My questions go to both of you.

In 2008, before I had been elected to the House, I visited a garment factory in my constituency that made jackets for Moores. The factory was soon going to close because, at the time, the federal government was not applying the measures developed by the World Trade Organization for the protection of manufacturing sectors, including the textile industry. In the factory, I saw workers 50 and 60 years old who had spent their whole lives making pants and jackets.

They knew how to do that very well, but they did not have the qualifications to do anything else. The men and women I met were not only anxious, they were also a little disillusioned and despairing by virtue of what they had to look forward to. Their pension was not enough and they were not old enough to qualify for the old age pension. They did not have the qualifications they needed in order to be able to return to the workforce. In your view, what should the federal government do in cases like that?

The story of the people in that factory is the same story we have seen all over Canada since the collapse of the manufacturing sector. Hundreds of thousands of people who have devoted their lives to make a factory or a company a success have been forced into unemployment. They have no prospects, except for exclusion and poverty. What should the federal government be doing to stand with those workers?

[Sarah Anson-Cartwright]

I think you've heard about programs, and you probably know far more than I do about the targeted initiative program. That seems to be the approach taken when there has been a displacement of workers and there is a need to consider how to address the opportunity and the training needs for those workers to find new jobs.

This is a very complicated area. We have to leave it to those in government to determine the right approach. Ultimately, you know there are needs for a lot of training. I mentioned essential skills and the fact that some people may have low educational attainment. That means they may not be equipped for the other opportunities that have arisen in an economy.

It's very challenging, but I think this is an area where government rather than business has an important role.

[Dr. Martine Lagacé]

I do not have the answer to that broad question. To echo what my colleague has just said, the pressing needs and problems of older workers are not currently being addressed. In my opinion, all workers really need is to be able to go through their careers with the mindset of lifelong training. Lifelong training does not just happen when workers are 20, 30 or 40. Lifelong training means training people of all ages, including those who are 50 and 60.

I go back to the issue of stereotypes. It is easy to say that older workers do not have any knowledge of new technologies. But if they are never trained in those new technologies, the stereotype becomes entrenched. A vision that training has to be lifelong is the first step to preventing older workers from being left by the wayside, with training that is obsolete in comparison to what their younger colleagues are receiving.

By contrast, there are excellent organizations that remain committed to keeping older workers on the job. Why does the government not consider supporting the good ideas and practices of companies who really are the models when it comes to keeping older workers employed?

Knowing that many organizations in Canada are actually committed to the added value that older workers contribute, why not use them as models in order to demonstrate their good practices and implant them in the public consciousness and discourse about keeping older workers employed?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you. I am happy to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Mr. Boulerice, you have about 15 seconds. I don't know if you want to ask a short question. If not, we'll move to the next speaker.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Already?

I have just one comment to make.

We also have to be aware of the fact that, if people are working longer today, it is often because they have no choice. Only a third of Canadian workers have a pension plan. Most of the time, it is not a defined benefits plan, it is a defined contributions plan. And now the Conservative government is going to be forcing them to work for two years longer in sometimes difficult working conditions. We also have to think about the whole structure of complementary private pension plans as well as the structure of public pension plans.

On another matter, I think Mr. Adler needs help with some water management issues today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice. I guess we'll take that as a comment.

We’ll move to Mr. Butt. Go ahead.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of you for being here. You made some very insightful comments.

I would be interested in both of your perspectives on this.

I have had several people in my office who I would say are in their early to mid-50s. They had worked for whatever company they worked for and that job is no longer there for whatever reason. Now they want to get back into the workforce. Obviously, they want to keep working, either because they have to or because they want to, but they're hearing over and over again, when they're applying for jobs and going to interviews, that they are overqualified, and that's the reason the company is not willing to hire them. It's not because they don't like them or don't think they can do the job, but they're hearing this term “overqualified”.

Sarah, from the perspective of the employer, and Martine, from your perspective of doing a lot of work in this area, how do we change that perception in the business and employment community? How do we turn it around to say you're not overqualified and you have a lot of value to bring to this job because of the experience you have?

I'm struggling, as one member of Parliament who meets with constituents in that age category who are trying to find work and are hearing this. Have you got any advice or ideas on how we can turn this negative view into something positive?

[Sarah Anson-Cartwright]

Thank you, Mr. Butt, for that question and comment.

I don't know how prevalent that type of circumstance is. Certainly, I am hearing quite a different set of comments recognizing the experience that experienced workers can bring. There is quite a bit of demand in this ThirdQuarter program, for example, from individuals looking for jobs, to continue working, even as they are a little bit older. There is a real recognition by a lot of the employers—I think there are 3,000 companies registered in that system—that there is experience and maturity and skills, and if there's the willingness on the part of the older worker to keep working, then that's a very good fit. I think it's the employer's loss if they are overlooking the opportunity to take on experienced workers.

The other important thing is that older worker employment is not apparently affecting youth opportunities. I think that's an important point to bear in mind; the statistics are not bearing out that it's having any significant impact.

I think there's an awareness. I think as more employers realize that they need everybody with experience and skills to bring to the positions they have open in a tightening labour market, they should be looking much more closely at those individuals who are interested in the positions and not overlook experience.

[Dr. Martine Lagacé]

I will be quick because, in a way, I will be finishing up what my colleague Sarah has just mentioned.

Once again, it is a matter of the rhetoric we use. What does being overqualified mean? When we have a big labour shortage and when young people often come along loaded down with degrees but with very little practical field experience, you can easily turn the rhetoric of overqualification into the added value of being able to pass on knowledge. If an older worker is overqualified, so much the better. That means that he will be able to pass on his knowledge to younger workers.

That reminds me that I should mention that, to change stereotypical attitudes about older workers being underqualified or overqualified, younger workers absolutely have to be part of the equation. If young workers are not convinced that the older worker has something to offer them, the obstacles will always remain obstacles. So why not create teams with a wide age range? When there is a project to create a new piece of technological equipment, why put all the young workers together to work on it? Why should there not be a 60-year-old worker in the team too?

In fact, being in contact with different age groups and people of different ages is a really good way to break down stereotypes. That context is at micro level. But change can begin there, with initiatives where different generations exchange ideas and the overqualified complement the underqualified.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Mr. Butt. You're almost out of time there.

We'll move to Mr. Cleary.