Thank you.
On behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress, I want to thank the committee for undertaking the study and for allowing the congress to present its views.
The congress is the national voice of 3.3 million workers in Canada. It's comprised of dozens of national and international unions, as well as provincial and territorial federations of labour.
The CLC has prepared a written submission to the committee on this study, and it's in translation. I will provide copies to the committee shortly.
I'm going to focus my preliminary remarks on issues pertaining to displaced older workers before addressing pensions and retirement and workplace training and education. In the interests of time, I'm going to jump to my overarching theme for my remarks and share the following.
In our view, facilitating choice over whether to prolong labour force participation is an important public policy goal. The emphasis on providing flexibility and greater opportunities for participation is key. Commonly, the tacit message in much policy discourse is that policy should encourage greater work and longer labour market attachment by older Canadians because of the larger economic advantages of easing fiscal pressures in the slowdown of growth in the labour supply.
Whether or not this is a desirable outcome, however, depends on workers' individual needs and preferences for work or retirement. We are therefore in agreement with the approach taken by the Expert Panel on Older Workers, which set out to improve opportunities and reduce barriers for workers who might choose to continue in paid work. Older workers may face a host of obstacles to employment, from age discrimination and poor health to obsolete skills. To improve the circumstances of older workers, public policy should aim at enlarging the range of choices available to workers with respect to continued labour force participation and retirement as well as encouraging flexibility with respect to work arrangements in the transition to retirement.
As the Canadian workforce ages, older workers are also making up a greater proportion of workers displaced by larger economic restructuring and displacement through layoff. Workers with longer tenure were affected by layoffs, for instance, to a greater extent in the most recent recession than in previous recessions.
Displaced older workers face significant labour adjustment challenges arising from multiple barriers to re-employment. Older workers' longer average job tenure may combine with skills specific to particular sectors, especially those in decline, that may pose difficulties in transferring to jobs in other sectors, so significant impediments to re-employment can arise.
Older workers tend to have lower levels of educational attainment than younger workers, and participation in formal training falls with age. In short, older workers face multiple challenges, including lower levels of literacy and investments in human capital, which have tended to lose value over the working career.
Despite being as prepared as younger workers to look outside the local community for re-employment, and being more willing, or resigned, to accept re-employment at lower earnings, older workers commonly experience periods of extended unemployment. Long-term unemployment in Canada, while lower than in the United States and below the OECD average, has worsened significantly since 2008 for workers of all ages, and it remains a particularly significant problem for older workers.
Whereas displaced younger workers routinely experience reduced earnings initially and subsequent increases in earnings, long-tenured older workers tend to suffer a significant and enduring loss of earnings. While this tends to result from significantly lower earnings from replacement employment rather than unemployment, some comments are warranted with respect to the employment insurance system and older workers.
The EI system was not designed for structural shifts and industry decline but rather for cyclical unemployment, and it does not well serve the interests of long-tenured workers in traditional industries facing periods of extended unemployment. Older workers typically do not access EI at the same level as younger workers. Despite being long-tenured, experienced workers with strong attachment to the job market receive the same benefits as younger workers.
We encourage the committee to consult the CLC's more extensive proposals on EI, which I will provide to the committee. These changes are designed to improve equity and adjustment for all workers, including older workers. These include moving to a uniform 360-hour EI entrance requirement for all regions; longer benefits of at least 50 weeks in all regions, so that fewer unemployed workers exhaust their claims, particularly during economic downturns; higher weekly benefits based on the best 12 weeks of earnings before a layoff; and a replacement rate of 60% of insured earnings.
Under current rules, workers are required to expend their severance pay prior to receiving regular benefits from EI. Besides being a compensation for job loss, having severance moneys available to draw on later is also a way of improving the prospects for successful adjustment. The CLC recommends that EI rules be amended so that severance pay does not displace EI benefits.
With respect to pensions in retirement income, displaced older workers are commonly dependent on pension income via public or workplace pensions. In this regard, two positive steps recommended by the Expert Panel on Older Workers are the elimination in January 2012 of the CPP work cessation test and the changes to permit older workers who are receiving CPP benefits to continue to accumulate CPP credits on future earnings.
In other respects, the Government of Canada's approach thus far has been to restrict early retirement opportunities to encourage later exit from the labour force. I'm referring here to the decision to phase in an increase in the eligibility age of old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, and the allowance.
As well, steps have yet to be taken to reduce or eliminate the clawback on GIS benefits triggered by annual employment income above $3,500, despite recommendations from various committees, including the expert panel. The reason I raise this is that the weakening of public pension availability is of particular concern in a context of low and declining pension coverage, the retreat of early retirement provisions of workplace pension plans, and the decline of defined-benefit plans generally. All of these shifts, as well as the conversion to defined contribution plans, will entail greater investment longevity risks falling on the shoulders of individual displaced workers, reducing the range of options and flexibility when they are considering whether to remain in employment or to retire.
The prospect of an insecure retirement should not be the impetus for older workers to remain in the workforce longer than they should or wish to.
On education and training, there is substantial room for employers to increase support for literacy efforts in the workplace, training and innovative forms of learning, lifelong learning among employees, and flexible work arrangements to support retention of experienced workers.
Employers are commonly reluctant to invest in training due to the problem of poaching, and many view older workers as carrying a high risk of low return on training investment, given that these workers are in the final stages of their careers. Indeed, employer-provided training is channeled disproportionately to younger workers with higher levels of education and skills. However, because of increases in health-adjusted life expectancy and the ability and interest among many older Canadians in working longer, opportunities for investments in training older workers, with greater anticipated return, are widespread. Older unemployed workers are as keen as younger workers to acquire new skills, suggesting a considerable unmet demand for formal and non-formal training. Measures to improve literacy are also important, given the benefits of raising the overall levels of literacy and numeracy to aggregate productivity growth.
Basic job search and employment counselling aimed at displaced older workers, such as that provided by the targeted initiative for older workers, can be effective. In our view, the targeted initiative should be expanded to unemployed workers 45 to 54 years old and to workers age 65 years and older. As well, measures to provide early intervention following job loss—which is something the targeted initiative does not provide—are crucial since re-employment prospects diminish with long-term unemployment.
Finally, providing greater access to active labour market measures under EI, part II, would be an important contribution to expanding options for displaced older workers.
Over and above these measures, paid training leave that is funded through the EI system would improve access to training for all workers, including older workers.
With that, I'll conclude.
I welcome your questions.