HUMA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 30, 1999

• 1112

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): I think we'll begin. As you can see, our main item of business, the order of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), is a status report on the report titled Looking Ahead: An Interim Report on Older Workers.

So we have with us as witnesses—and we're very pleased to see you, lady and gentlemen—Avrim Lazar, assistant deputy minister, strategic policy in HRDC; Ron Stewart, director general, labour market directorate—Ron, it's nice to see you here—Jean-Pierre Voyer, director general, applied research branch; Serge Bertrand, director, evaluation services; and—this is a change—Marie-France Kingsley, policy analyst, learning, employment and labour policy. Is that correct?

We welcome you all. We really appreciate your being here.

Colleagues, that is our main item of business. I want to draw your attention to the fact that under other business there are two motions. I hope colleagues will be looking at those as this meeting proceeds. We will deal with those at the end of this meeting, whatever time it is that we finish.

Avrim, are you going to present first, or how were you going to proceed here?

Mr. Avrim Lazar (Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Department of Human Resources Development): If you like, I can do a few opening remarks, and then we can move on to conversation and discussion.

The Chair: By all means. Go ahead.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: I'm very pleased to be invited. I understand the minister sent you a letter in response to your interim report in which he expressed enthusiasm for continuing this work and encouraged the committee to continue to explore this.

It's a tremendously important subject. It's also an extremely difficult subject. Older workers do quite well in the marketplace until they lose their jobs, and then they have a great deal of difficulty. Unlike many other workers, for older workers it isn't so much a question of seasons or business cycles, it's very often a question of structural changes to the economy. The sorts of jobs they did no longer exist. The sorts of skills they had are no longer valued. So it becomes a long-term and very painful problem, one that no one really knows how to fix.

• 1115

We have many ideas. Some things work; some things don't work. Because it reflects so much the changes in the structure of the economy, it's an extremely difficult problem to face effectively.

I thought I would share the four preoccupations we have in the department in trying to address the older worker issue.

The first one is active measures. As we've shared with you before and as the committee report reflects, the first choice is always to find ways of getting older workers back into the economy. This is not simply economics; it's also social. When someone stays out of the economy, they slowly become isolated and risk becoming alienated from society. It also reflects the desires of most of the workers themselves to be part of the mainstream. So it's active measures for both economic and social reasons, and for general kindness.

The difficulty with active measures is that because the skills deficit is often so deep and also because the displaced older workers themselves don't seem to be hugely motivated to be retrained, they don't take up our offers of active measures of training as often as other workers do. I think they take it up at half the rate.

The other big difficulty of course is that the demand isn't what it could be, and even if people get the skills, there has to be a job they can take. Often these are workers who've been in resource industries, where their industry is no longer growing, and they're in regions in which the sorts of jobs they would want no longer exist. So active measures have to be complemented by some sort of community intervention, whether it's economic stimulation or some sort of social development. So the active measures are at both the individual and the community levels.

Our second preoccupation is partnership, because many of the necessary levers for dealing with this rest with the provinces. If we're going to solve the problems the workers face, it's going to have to be done together with the provinces. If we try to do it alone, I don't think we'll be as effective. Nonetheless the federal government has responsibilities in this area, so we have to work together with the provinces.

We're also beginning to reflect upon whether we should be trying to seek a greater role for industry—whether industry could play a more creative and participatory role in trying to address these issues. We're very much at the beginnings of those thoughts, but we think the partnership goes beyond governments to the private sector and of course to organized labour.

Our third preoccupation is preventative measures. It's much easier to prepare someone for their next job when they're working than it is after they've lost their job. Their self-esteem is high and the way in which employers see them is better. Generally they feel like workers; they feel like winners. After you've been out of a job for a while—six months, twelve months—it's very hard to build back up the energy and the momentum.

Quite often we find that these workers had the skills for their old jobs but not for the new marketplace. You will have noticed that the Speech from the Throne talked about labour market information. That is part of the prevention scheme.

We've surveyed workers, and one of the things they tell us is they don't know what courses to take to upgrade their skills. They don't know where to go. They don't know what would actually be worth investing in. So one of our plans is to have a labour market information system so that individuals who want to invest in themselves and upgrade their skills would know what sort of training would work and what would make a difference in their lives.

Another thing workers have been telling us is that they don't upgrade their skills because of the cost. The Speech from the Throne talked about financing lifelong learning. This is a direct response to what workers are telling us. They would like to do something about improving their skills to give them the skills that would allow them to find a job should they be laid off, but they just don't have the cash to do it. So we're exploring various options as to how to finance lifelong learning. Of course we'd be very grateful for any advice that comes from the committee on what sorts of vehicles would be useful.

A third element in the Speech from the Throne addressing the difficulty faced by older workers is literacy. Again, as you've said in your report and heard in your hearings, a lot of the older workers don't have functional literacy necessary for entry-level jobs even. Any sort of literacy intervention, both for the employed workforce and for the laid-off workforce, would help a lot. That was announced in the Speech from the Throne, and we'll be looking at options in that area.

• 1120

Then last in the Speech from the Throne they talked about involving sectors more. That's because we find that when we deal with industry, if we talk in generalities, the response isn't that large, but if we deal sector by sector, the solutions are more specific to the problems and we can probably find things that are more effective.

So as I said, we have four preoccupations. One is active measures, second is partnerships, third is prevention, and the fourth is effectiveness. This is an area in which it's very easy pour in big piles of money and not help very many people. It's a very hard area to program effectively. So we've been very preoccupied with effectiveness.

Serge and his group have been not only looking at the Canadian experience of helping older workers but also studying the international literature. They're preparing a summary of lessons learned throughout the industrialized world in how to help older workers effectively re-enter the workforce, so that when we do embark on new programming, it's based upon some sound evidence.

We also have experiments in different communities, one on income supplementation, which is something the committee seems very interested in. We've actually done experiments. I'm sorry to say the promise it held out hasn't been realized so far. After a couple of years, it doesn't seem to make a big difference. So we're beginning to ask whether that's the right place or whether we can do something more effective.

We also have an experiment starting now in Cape Breton, which will address whether or not the social sector experience would be useful for these sorts of workers. That will see whether some participation in community development and social projects will increase the employability of older workers. It will be a few years to have the results of that, but it holds some promise.

As the minister shared with you in her letter, we've invited the provinces to join us in doing pilot projects so that we actually have on-the-ground experience of different sorts of approaches and what their impact has been.

Mr. Chairman, you probably don't want me to go on and on, so we'll leave it there and wait for questions and comments.

The Chair: Avrim, thank you very much. Do any of your colleagues want to say something at the moment? No? Okay.

On the list, colleagues, I have Paul Crête, Rey Pagtakhan, Bryon Wilfert, Larry McCormick, and Maurice Vellacott.

We'll start with Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank our witnesses for their presentations.

I read the Minister's report with interest and I noticed that it contains a number of figures. It's interesting to see that the Minister wishes to learn more about the follow-up to our study and the final report. I would conclude that she believes that it is important that we continue working on this issue.

I would like to ask you two questions. There is nothing in the Minister's response dealing with the problem of older workers who will not be able to re-enter the labour force. Her letter only mentions measures to upgrade skills for workers who can be brought back into the labour market. Unless I'm mistaken, we seem to be forgetting all the clients who are now between the ages of 55 and 65 and not offering them any opportunities for re-training. It seems to me that her answer touches a lot on the question of active measures. I'd like more specific information on that.

My second question is more of a technical question and deals with the pilot projects for which the government has put aside $15 million. I'd like to know more specifically where exactly we are at with these pilot projects, if some provinces have already submitted some and what the procedure is for submitting. The Minister's letter gives the impression that the government intended to earmark $15 million, but these pilot projects don't seem to have been implemented.

The best idea that this letter contains is a preventative measure for younger workers, which will allow us to ensure that later on we won't have clients such as those we are seeing now who cannot get back into the labour market. However this does not mean that we can forget those who are between the ages of 55 and 65 and who are unemployed or who are employed in sectors where their physical health is being damaged and who would be ready to retire tomorrow morning. Would it not be possible to imagine that the workers who retire at the age of 63 could be considered as having left their job and be eligible for employment insurance benefits without penalty, which would provide them with the transition until their retirement?

• 1125

Mr. Avrim Lazar: I will try to answer your question with the help of my colleagues.

I will start by answering your most difficult question, the one on changes to employment insurance. We propose waiting until the end of the five-year review before making any changes. At that time, we will have all kinds of opportunities to think of a new direction. For now, we don't intend to amend the law, but we might be able to make some slight adjustments. However, once again, nothing has been decided. Once we proceed with the five-year review, we will study the state of the labour market and we will identify the fields where the law does not correspond to the situation of the hour.

Mr. Paul Crête: You could do such an evaluation in the third or fourth year report and propose that measures be taken more quickly. Couldn't this be a possibility?

Mr. Avrim Lazar: We can measure the impact of the current law, but this does not indicate opportunities for changes. That requires a different process.

Mr. Paul Crête: You are even slower than the Minister. She mentioned the third year, whereas you mention a five-year review.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: We begin this process before the fifth year.

We don't have any immediate plan targeting workers who are having trouble re-entering the work force. There is already a whole social assistance system, and it's the provinces that are primarily responsible for income support measures. We haven't foreseen any supplementary programs.

Mr. Paul Crête: So then you would recommend social assistance for older workers who are unemployed.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: No, not at all.

Mr. Paul Crête: That's what you just said.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: We give priority to active measures.

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, I understand that.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: If these active measures are insufficient, then there has to be recourse to a support system that exists in our country and which includes, among other things, employment insurance.

Mr. Paul Crête: Including social assistance.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: When necessary, yes. This isn't the first choice.

With respect to the pilot projects, we have created a multilateral committee which the province of Quebec is co-chairing. We are accepting the provinces' proposals and a committee is reviewing them. We have already received a number of proposals from different provinces, including Quebec. We will then begin implementing these projects.

Marie-France, would you like to add anything?

Ms. Marie-France Kingsley (Senior Policy Analyst, Knowledge Acquisition, Employment and Labour Policy, Department of Human Resources Development): Up until now, Quebec, Alberta, Yukon, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan have formally indicated their wish to participate in the pilot project initiative for older workers. All of the legwork, so to speak, still needs to be done. It is about to be done.

Mr. Paul Crête: Would the committee here be able to see copies of any concrete projects that have been tabled?

Ms. Marie-France Kingsley: As far as I know, there still aren't any.

[English]

The Chair: Just so you all know, I have Rey Pagtakhan, Bryon Wilfert, Larry McCormick, Maurice Vellacott, Raymonde Folco, Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, and then Angela Vautour, so I'm going to try to keep it moving. I would just mention out of politeness that the chair is here, and I mention this particularly for our colleagues, but also for the witnesses. I think it does work better if the chair is involved in some of these exchanges.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If there is still a need for this committee to study this problem beyond hearing the witnesses from the government, are the studies and projects envisioned sufficient?

Mr. Avrim Lazar: I understood the minister's letter to be strongly encouraging the committee to continue to study this issue. We will continue, of course, our pilot projects and our studies as to what works best. That kind of exploration at the public service level can complement, but not replace, the sort of investigation the committee could do.

• 1130

So I understand that the minister is strongly encouraging it. The problem still exists and the solutions are still not clear, so I think the short answer is yes.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The seven-year project that you have in your handout, is that a seven-year project for any single project or is it the total seven-year project that you have in this handout?

Mr. Avrim Lazar: You have to tell me which project. Cape Breton? Okay.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: Jean-Pierre?

The Chair: Jean-Pierre Voyer.

Mr Jean-Pierre Voyer (Director General, Applied Research Branch, Department of Human Resources Development): Cape Breton is not the same as the older worker pilot project. The series of federal-provincial pilot projects that is being currently discussed and negotiated has yet to start. Separate from that, the department has an experimental fund allowing us to test new initiatives. We've had a couple of projects that may affect older workers. Two of those are reported in this handout.

One is the earning supplementation project for which we have results. The other is the Cape Breton one, which you refer to as being a seven-year project, but it's barely starting. None of those have been directed especially to older workers, but they include and they're shaped in a way that we'll learn a lot about how older workers can be helped through these different measures.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: It is a long project, a seven-year project. I understand that older workers will be included, but are you telling the committee that there is no specific methodology designed to test the value of this project for older workers?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Voyer: Absolutely not.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'm sorry, you say there is no—

Mr. Jean-Pierre Voyer: No, I'm sorry. Absolutely, yes. We have the state-of-the-art technology to test this. We're known across the world in terms of the quality of our experiments. They take a lot of time and they take a lot of money; they're called random assignment, which is the best model of evaluation you can find on the market.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: My last question relates to the need for a program and the phased-in retirement program. Are you looking into that approach whereby you will have a gradual retirement? People, older workers, will continue to get a partial pension, will continue to pay into their pension plans and, at the same time, be preparing for that eventuality. Is that a considerably good project?

Mr. Avrim Lazar: Under the heading of our general study of an aging society and where the pension system is, we have that as a possibility. It's actually being motivated out of a slightly different concern, which is people retiring too quickly—the fact that the labour force, as we have an aging society, will be shrinking faster than we want, with the loss of all sorts of expertise. One of the things we're looking at in a very preliminary way at this point is whether we can change the incentives structure so that people can partially retire and keep on working. But it's at a very preliminary stage.

But is it a relevant question and is it something worth pursuing? Our opinion is yes.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks, Rey.

Bryon Wilfert, Larry McCormick and then Maurice Vellacott.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, witnesses, for being here.

The first comment I'd make, Mr. Chairman, is that we did ask for a comprehensive response by the end of September. The letter from the minister is anything but a comprehensive response, and I would point that out.

Secondly, I would indicate that there is the issue in Ontario of a proposed labour-management agreement with the Province of Ontario. It's something that many of us from Ontario have grave concerns about, particularly in terms of the ability of the province to deliver.

I would like to pose my first question through you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the issue of older workers—and this is an issue I raised with the committee, and the committee decided to have it as one of the main items—I notice in the minister's letter it suggests that the department will be working with labour ministers from across Canada in terms of their own study of older workers. First of all, I hope we would be kept abreast as to what those discussions would be and I hope that we're not trying to reinvent the wheel.

Because I do believe that federal leadership is extremely important in this issue given the fact that the population is aging, and all the issues that we raised in a fairly detailed interim report back in June, which you're certainly well aware of, I want to know whether or not we would be looking at devolving the tools to the provinces in terms of older workers. I realize the provinces have a role to play, but I would hope there's no intention to abrogate federal leadership in an area where I think we have an extremely important role to play.

That would be my first question.

• 1135

The Chair: Bryon, could you give your second question at the same time. Perhaps you would make a note of that. I only say this because we obviously have a lot of government members and I'd like to spread it out. The government members are on the list. They're fewer than the opposition members, but if you could, I would be grateful—that is, if it's okay with the witnesses.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: The other question, then, Mr. Chairman, through you, would be on the issue on strategies. I hear that we're talking about pilot programs, $15 million here as an example in the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. This is obviously an immediate issue, and particularly the fact is—and you raise the point quite well—that people don't expect to be unemployed. Suddenly they're unemployed and they may not have the skills they need.

My colleague mentioned some of the activities going on in Denmark, Sweden, and other countries where in fact you talk about partial pension, etc. I notice the Americans have just raised the pension, probably to the surprise of many Americans. Retirement age is going from 65 to 67. It will be phased in over 20 years, and the people born in 1960 and afterwards are going to be affected. Apparently, according to opinion polls, most Americans are unaware of this.

We have a problem in this country in terms of older workers when they are suddenly unemployed. Whether they're in a so-called blue-collar industry or whether they're in a white-collar position, I think we have to look at the type of strategies. I was hoping you would be coming back and giving us a larger sense of the types of innovative things with the private sector, provinces, etc., that will address this, and not just on a pilot basis but particularly in areas where there may be high levels of unemployment—or just, quite frankly, anyone who could be in the Greater Toronto area, as an example that I'm most familiar with, who suddenly becomes unemployed. What do they do?

One of the things we have to be very much aware of is that a person's self-worth, if they're not working.... Most people don't want to just go on welfare or go on unemployment, they want a job as quickly as possible, and that's why I think we need to be much more proactive in terms of the resources.

I realize the Speech from the Throne identified those four areas. I think that's probably even more important than other issues. I would hope that HRDC will be showing real leadership rather than simply saying we're going to deal with this or that. I want to be able to hear some real specifics from this department. I would like to hear them. Hopefully I won't have to wait as long as I did to get this interim response back. I would hope that by February we're going to see some real concrete proposals from your department.

The Chair: As much as I like the line of questioning, we have to keep it moving. So I'd be grateful if the witnesses would respond effectively but briefly.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Are we planning to abrogate our role is the first question. No. Are we planning to exercise it in a way that effectively enlists the provinces? Yes. In those provinces that have LMDA agreements, we are very actively engaged with them to make certain that what they're doing addresses the issues of older workers. We are also conscious that if the federal government tries to do it all, we'll probably be a lot less effective than if we try to do it with the provinces.

So very clearly this is an issue for us. We have taken the leadership of setting out the pilot projects. We have taken the leadership of inviting the provinces to join us in a multilateral committee to deal with it. The government obviously took the leadership of announcing all the measures in the Speech from the Throne that address the skills deficits that older workers face. So I don't think there's any issue in terms of abrogating our role.

In terms of strategies you prefaced the question with, people don't expect to get laid off, and once they get laid off it's hard. We are painfully aware of that, because the department deals with it on a daily basis. At some point it might be useful to ask Mr. Stewart—and I'm not going to do it right away—to talk about what programs are available to them, because under part 2 of employment insurance they do have access to training, to income supplementation, to all sorts of measures to help them get back in. Many of those are effective, but because of the population we're working with, because of resistance in the marketplace, it's a very hard group to work with.

• 1140

The reason we have such an emphasis on pilots and experiments and what not is that we're not confident that what we're doing is the best that can be done. But to do the best that can be done, we've looked all over the world, and Monsieur Bertrand's studies show that there are some general lessons to be learned but that there are no magic wands in this area. We are conscientiously trying to find better ways to intervene and more effective ways to help.

As far as real specifics go, the real specifics that are on the table now are those that were announced by the government. The labour market information is an extremely important initiative in that. I'll go back one step on this. We asked workers: Why don't you invest more in yourselves? Why aren't you upgrading your training? You know that the demands are getting harder and harder. They told us very simple things. One, they don't have time. That's no surprise. Two, it costs money, and if you're not in one of the higher wage brackets, how do you put aside money to invest in your own training? Three, they're not sure about what to take. I'm a welder; should I go study computer science? Should I learn how to be a tool and die maker? I hear there are opportunities in biotechnology; do they need welders?

So they just don't know where to go, where the future's going to lie. The time is a hard one for government to intervene in, and if we knew the answer to that, a lot of us would be happier.

But there is a possibility where we can help. We haven't put specifics on the table, because we want to make sure that when we do it, we do it right. But the announcement in the Speech from the Throne was that we are going help individuals invest in their own lifelong learning. We're engaged with the provinces and looking at different models. We're looking at loan models, where maybe we can help people borrow. We're looking at assisted savings similar to what we have in the educational savings grant, where government helps people save. We're looking at tax measures. And when we do something, we want to make sure it'll be something that works.

I could go on, but I sense the chair doesn't want me to.

The Chair: Avrim, thank you very much. I understand that in the meeting in May the review of the international experience was mentioned. Is there material available that we could receive?

Mr. Avrim Lazar: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think the actual report will be ready in February. There is interim stuff.

Monsieur Bertrand, if you have stuff with you—

The Chair: Serge Bertrand.

Mr. Serge Bertrand (Director, Evaluation Services, Department of Human Resources Development): Yes, I think in the package that was distributed a summary of this piece we call “Let's Organize the Older Worker” was included. The summary is available. We have distributed it to members in the package.

The Chair: I will look at it. Serge, that's fine. I don't want to distract—

Mr. Serge Bertrand: And the report itself, yes.

The Chair: When it's available, we would be most grateful to receive it as promptly as possible.

Colleagues, my objective here is fairness on all sides and to try to keep the questioning flowing, so I'm changing the list. I'm going go to Maurice Vellacott first, then Larry McCormick, then Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, then Raymonde Folco, and then Angela Vautour, in that order.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, can we also get that material from Mr. Stewart? We talk about all these programs that may be available, but how does one access them? I would appreciate that information.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: I don't believe we have those with us, but we will make sure the committee gets them.

The Chair: We'd be most grateful.

It's Maurice Vellacott then, Larry McCormick.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Gentlemen or Marie, whoever feels it's appropriate can respond to my question.

The former committee looked at this whole thing, the lifelong learning and in particular the EI training account—you hadn't mentioned or commented specifically on that so far—where those credits accrue to each of the EI contributors over a period of time. I'm wondering if you are looking around at other countries or parts of the world to see whether they have such things, or would that facilitate the lifelong learning we need? They say that individuals will end up being in several jobs over the course of a lifetime, with all the changes that occur in our modern era. In your opinion, would an initiative like an EI training account be financed, and under what conditions would contributors gain access to those training credits? How would they get at that?

Mr. Avrim Lazar: Thank you for the question.

• 1145

We have been looking at the possibility of using EI as a mechanism for a savings account. Our general reaction is that it may create distortions in how you would do it because it's tied to the EI account. It would only be accessible to people who pay EI premiums.

We may be able to achieve the same policy objective of helping people to save for lifelong learning through some source of funds other than the EI account, and in a more effective way. That being said, there is considerable interest in using EI as a vehicle for that, and we've been trying to develop models to see how it would work.

So the short answer is yes, there's tremendous merit in helping people find a way of saving so that they can retrain themselves for new jobs; and yes, EI is one way of doing it. Our only caution in focusing on EI is that we might then shape the program to fit EI rather than shaping the program to fit the needs of those who want training, so we're also looking at other models.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: With an EI account, if I understand a basic way of how it might be run, it would leave a little more control in the hands of the individual rather than letting the government dictate by saying this is the program someone can get training funds for and this one they can't, forget it, they're out of the picture. You may not know or in all cases anticipate some kind of rigid criterion or what the needs....

A person knows how secure his employment is, or whether he's feeling under-skilled or just on the edge of being kicked out. A really inflexible bureaucratic program wouldn't necessarily take that into account, whereas maybe an EI account might.

According to one of your graphs here, the older workers, those aged 55 and up, aren't really into the lifelong learning as much or don't take advantage of it, but those up to age of 54.... We're going to need to get on top of this. We have an aging population with fewer people paying for all the benefits that we have in the country, like health and social benefits and so on.

I'm intrigued with that idea and the fact that it allows a little more control rather than being directly dictated, rather than your being told, “It's this problem that we have over here, so we know what's best for you. We know what the market requires and so on; therefore you're out, and you're in.” With an EI training account, it would seem to me that people would have a little more discretion over the use of that themselves.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: That would be a real advantage to an EI training account. We can achieve the same advantage in something like an educational savings account, for example. In the current program in which you can save for your children's education, no one tells you what school they have to go to, and no one tells them what courses to take or how to spend the money. All the government does is help you to save by making it tax-free savings, but also by topping it up with a 20% grant that goes in there. A vehicle like that would have the advantages of leaving it in the hands of the citizen to decide how much to save and how to use it, without necessarily tying it to the terms and conditions of the EI program.

I'm not saying the EI program may not be the solution, but there are other ways of achieving the same end.

Certainly we agree that the government telling people what to take won't work. One of the reasons we're so keen on labour learning market information is that individuals will have access to the information themselves. By having the information and access to a counsellor if they want it, they can then make their own choices. Right now it's very hard to make the choices, because the individuals just don't know where to go, so they rely perhaps too heavily on the counsellor.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I think it needs to be tied to the labour market, but also there is the fact of self-motivation or individual motivation. If we just say there are job opportunities in this area and that someone needs to do A, B or C, that may be nothing the guy is wired up for at all.

With respect to your comment about the RESPs, as the father of two college-aged kids and some of a younger age, I know we can take advantage of that. We talked about that the other day in committee here, and it was commented that you have to have a certain middle-income living to be able to even have money to set aside so that the government matches. That would be a bit of a disadvantage in respect to that, whereas with EI you don't have choice, because you're paying into it whether you want or not. With the RESP...well, it's not really discretionary, but it's over and above savings.

I don't know if you have a comment or an acknowledgement with respect to that or not.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: It's definitely a disadvantage of savings vehicles, which is why we are also looking at the possibility of loans vehicles. The EI money is still money. As I said, though, we're looking at a whole series of models, and we will take your interest in the EI model very seriously.

The Chair: Thanks, Maurice.

I have Larry McCormick, and then Jocelyne Girard-Bujold.

• 1150

Oui, Jean-Pierre?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Voyer: Just to complete that, I would say we're looking right now. There is some experimentation going on in the U.S. with a matching grant formula for low skills. For every dollar the individual saves, the state matches two or three times that savings. The idea is to create a behaviour of saving among those with low skills and low income, and to use those moneys on human capital investment. They have the freedom to choose.

It's a concept very similar to the EI one that you propose, but it applies to everyone, whether they participate in EI or not. It's a broader concept, and it doesn't have the problems of being tied to the EI account and introducing the biases and problems that Avrim alluded to.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is it just savings, or is it actually used for training or something like that?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Voyer: In the States, they can use it to buy a house, to train, or to start a business. In Canada, we're looking at it with a view more focused on training and education.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: In the United States, it's focused on the people who are quite excluded from society, and it's to give them a sense of personal empowerment. They can invest in themselves. So even if the government is matching it at three to one, the psycho-social impact is as big as the financial impact.

The Chair: Serge Bertrand.

Mr. Serge Bertrand: Just as a very quick thing, we also have evaluation evidence that shows that in programs in which participants themselves contribute financially to the cost of the programs in some way or another, they are much more successful in these programs than in other kinds of programs. That's a key factor.

The Chair: Larry, then Jocelyne.

Colleagues, if I could point something out, if all 18 of us were here and we all took ten minutes...well, you can work it out yourself. It's 180 minutes.

An hon. member: But we aren't all here, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I'm doing my best to keep it moving.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Chair, I certainly would want to acknowledge that you're there, and I always look to you for much leadership. I don't see 18 people here, but I am appreciative of the fact that these people are here, these experts from whom we can learn.

The one thought that strikes me when I look at these graphs and statistics and all this excellent work that you put together is that I believe in HRD. I'm on the agriculture committee more, but Paul and I have been here for six years on this committee, including when we were nicknamed the “committee from hell”. We did 26 cities in 35 days, in ten provinces and the two territories in the eastern Arctic.

All of this always reflects Canada. Great. But it reminds me about political polls. Where is rural Canada? That seems to be the small role that this backbencher has taken on for himself. I live in eastern Ontario. Once you go north of that highway between Ottawa and Toronto, the one called Highway 7, my riding is much like New Brunswick, parts of Quebec, and all of Atlantic Canada. I was at a training board meeting last Thursday night, and the official unemployment rate in the northern part of my riding—official—is 16.7%.

When he was here during his time, I asked Minister Pettigrew—we've likely had half a dozen ministers come to our committee over these six years, counting the labour minister—when we're going to look at changing these boundaries. Ridings such as ours were not able to access funds. In Kingston and Belleville and in that umbrella there, things are pretty good. There are jobs.

I really always want to take the opportunity to remind you that we're supposed to have a rural lens in every department, and that we can look at it, whether it be for the experimental programs or the pilot projects and that, to make sure we do invest fairly into rural Canada, because of the fact that 30% of Canadians live in the country.

As my other short comment, when Industry Canada brought out a bible of programs—probably three years ago was the first time—the rumour got out that officials said they didn't know we had all these programs. Well, I'm sure HRD can't afford to let us all know about all these things we have to use, because then there wouldn't be enough money if we could access them. There's a great need to have an updated information source so that all these good members of Parliament can be able to access those programs, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: We enthusiastically agree that providing MPs and, even more importantly, the public with information about what the range of programs is, and how to access them is very important. I can't share with you what exactly we have now, because it's not an area on which I'm an expert. We will provide to the committee our current information base and would be glad to discuss ways in which it could be improved.

• 1155

Mr. Larry McCormick: Again, I'd like to leave here with a good feeling that you are aware of rural Canada. Most ministries, most bureaucrats, do not live and do not work in rural Canada. We may have come from rural Canada, but—

Mr. Avrim Lazar: We have offices across Canada.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Oh, yes.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: I will just say as an individual that I worked at the agriculture department for six years and am very aware of rural Canada. We work with the rural secretariat at Agriculture Canada, making certain that all our programs are rural-sensitive.

Ron, seeing as you're on the delivery end, do you want to deliver a rural message?

The Chair: Mr. Stewart.

Mr. Ron Stewart (Director General, Labour Market Directorate, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly I think one of the key things—perhaps it's tomorrow and not today—is what Avrim has already referred to, about the labour and learning information. This type of technology can replace the old concept of the brick-and-mortar office. You can have an information office that is far more accessible than any system we could put in place with our existing HRCCs.

The partnership is going to be the key to making this work. If we take the Canada Post example of putting a kiosk in a 7-Eleven in a very small area, or in a public library or in any of these facilities, one of the keys is going to be having someone there to help the people navigate through this stuff. You've picked up on the point of the high degree of illiteracy in certain areas and the literacy problem of older workers and what not.

We can easily roll out this kind of technology. We can roll out kiosks all over the place, budget permitting. But the key thing is to have someone there to actually help the people navigate through this stuff, to download the information they want. What we're really hoping is that the move towards organizing and disseminating information electronically will allow us to reach far deeper into rural Canada than we've been able to with the existing systems we have.

The Chair: May—

Mr. Larry McCormick: I have a few seconds. If I don't, I'll pass it on to you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Well, one and a half seconds...I was going to comment on what you said, but you can do the same thing, Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick: It makes me think of when we were going across the country with a government task force that had to do with financial affairs and ended up to being about bank mergers. All these great people—some of the smartest people in Canada—would start telling us how many rural people and farmers, who are business people, are using the Internet for banking and all these things.

On the edge of Kingston—it's sort of a metropolitan area, with a small university there at Queen's—I believe that the 57 homes who have not had any telephone service of any kind for the last several years may get telephones now.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Things are not what they may appear to be in rural Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: My comment was going to be that in the county of Peterborough, within ten minutes of the city of Peterborough, there are families that have never had phones. They have cell phones now for safety reasons, but you could well imagine the cost if you have teenagers and a cell phone when you're paying—even for incoming calls. That's one point. And you certainly don't have access to the Internet. The other thing is that I am generally concerned about the withdrawal of HRDC from rural Canada.

This is my list, colleagues. I've changed it a bit. It's Jocelyne Girard-Bujold first, then Raymonde Folco, Angela Vautour, Judi Longfield, and Rey Pagtakhan. Okay?

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): I have two reactions to the Minister's response. As you know, last year, the former Committee on Human Resources development established a subcommittee to study the issue of older workers and the POWA program which no longer exists. This subcommittee studied an issue which was very precise and immediate. In her response, the Minister doesn't deal with the immediate situation, but rather with workers who can be retrained. She doesn't mention at all the problems that have been identified by witnesses who came and testified before the subcommittee.

• 1200

All across Canada—I thought at the beginning that this only happened in Quebec—there are plants that are closing and workers who will never be able to be retrained. They are dealing with serious problems. This is what we wanted to debate and it was on this subject that we expected a response from the Minister. I don't see anything about this in her letter.

I see that she wants to implement pilot projects which target, once again, a very specific clientele, workers who will lose their job and who will be retrained. She describes the best way to retrain these workers. However, I was asking her to suggest immediate concrete actions that could be taken for these clients who are affected now.

As you know, these immediate clients are not easy to help. These are people who have always worked for companies and in factories, and who don't have a high level of education. How could they take advantage of these active measures? It is really absurd that we want them to go and take courses again. This is a useless waste of money. This is what they come and tell me all day long in my office. They cannot be retrained because they don't have the abilities.

They contributed to employment insurance for their entire lives and yet now when it comes time for retirement, their income is insufficient to bridge this gap. They want to know what measures we can take to help them. These are the measures that this subcommittee was supposed to identify, but I see nothing about this here. I don't know if the Minister read the testimony and if you reported on it to her. That was the issue.

There was talk of work-sharing, of phased retirement and of volunteer work. A retired person could work for 20 hours and then another person could come and finish up the work week. There are so many things that witnesses spoke to us about and that are not dealt with in this response. I do not understand what is happening. We seem to be going around in circles. I think the time to act is now. The Throne Speech mentioned investment, but they don't specify how we're going to invest. Are we going to invest in active measures which will benefit future older workers? What are we doing now? I'd like to hear your perspective on this.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: The Minister's letter is a response to your committee's progress report. I had understood that when a committee had completed its work and tabled its report, the government normally gave their official response.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, but your Minister has closed the door.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: No, I don't think that is the case. She expressed a lot of enthusiasm with respect to the committee's work and she encouraged you to continue.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: All she does is propose passive measures, and I must admit to you that I'm very disappointed that she hasn't solved the very specific issues that some of our workers are facing today. Let's stop talking nonsense. People are facing a problem right now. Their employment insurance benefits are coming to an end and they will have to fall back on—literally—social assistance. Most of them have not contributed to RRSPs and they will forced to tread water until they turn 65. They didn't expect their future to be like this. What are we doing to help them? Our Employment Insurance Fund has a surplus of $20 billion. In my opinion, the Minister's response doesn't offer any solutions.

[English]

The Chair: There wasn't a question.

C'est assez, Avrim? Is that okay? No comment?

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: It is too bad that he doesn't want to comment, because I would have liked to hear his perspective, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay. Avrim, would you like to say a few words?

Mr. Avrim Lazar: I would simply like to repeat that the most important thing is to help displaced workers contribute to society. Having them sit around at home and watch television is not a solution. A solution is having them participate in society.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: But these people don't want to stay at home. They never said that that's what they wanted to do when they appeared before us. They came to say that they wanted us to implement measures that would be adapted to their needs, and not future programs. They want us to deal with the present, but the Minister has said nothing about the present. She talks of the future or the past, but not of the present.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: In our Employment Insurance Program, we have made provisions for general active measures targeted to help these people re-enter the work force, including wage subsidies and training.

We are aware that these measures are not enough, and that's why we established pilot projects. We are looking for efficient measures that will bring about change. We are not in favour of the status quo.

• 1205

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Does the Minister mean to say in her letter that if we study passive measures, we are wasting our time?

Mr. Paul Crête: That's an important question.

[English]

The Chair: I'm going now to Raymonde Folco, then to Angela Vautour.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to refer to page 6, your profile of older workers, where we find the percentage of the labour force without a high school diploma per province.

Obviously, like everyone, I first look at my own province, Quebec. I observe that Quebec used to have a rate of 40% of people without high school diplomas, which represents almost three million people. Thankfully, this percentage has dropped to 21%, which represents now a little over 1.5 million people. Quebec is a little above the Canadian average. The Canadian average used to be 27% or 28%. The old average of 40% for Quebec was well above the Canadian average. The current Canadian average is 19% or 20%, and we are at 21%.

I bring up this issue of education because it seems to me that if you do not have a very advanced degree of education, it's difficult to upgrade the very fundamental things, because you don't necessarily have the intellectual means or the technical means to do so.

My question deals with literacy work because many of these older workers are illiterate. In the literacy courses, what sorts of initiatives have you been able to establish with the workplace? Are you cooperating with the private sector to ensure that older workers aren't only retrained every once in a while, but benefit from a continuous retraining thanks to the help of their employer? That is my first question.

I will ask my second question, notwithstanding the fact that my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois are sitting opposite us today. I know that the federal government has had many opportunities to create special projects, through the implementation of education projects, which are obviously under the provincial jurisdiction, and to help the provinces in their goal of creating a partnership between the private sector and the education sector in the school boards and other education environments. Have you undertaken any such initiatives? Have there been any such initiatives at the international level?

Mr. Avrim Lazar: Jean-Pierre, you could comment first of all on the figures and we could answer the specific questions.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Voyer: I'd like to come back to your interpretation of the figures because I wouldn't want to mislead you. The 40% for Quebec represents the percentage of the labour force aged 55 and older who do not have a high school diploma, whereas the 21% figure is that of the entire population. So we are not indicating that the situation has improved; we are simply comparing the older workers to the entire population. The problem remains a serious one in Canada. I will now let Avrim respond to your question.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: That is when I arrived in Quebec, precisely, yes. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to add that we all know there's been marked improvement in the educational levels of workers in general and of older workers, specifically in Quebec. I wouldn't be able to say if that were the case in all of Canada. You have just given us some important information that proves once again how serious this issue is.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: Mr. Townsend, who appeared before your committee last week, is in charge of education support programs. Obviously education is a provincial jurisdiction and we must respect this fact.

• 1210

We do some things at the request of the provinces, for example reports regarding education and student performance, in addition to national and international comparisons. We are very active in this field.

We subsidize private groups who work in literacy. As the Governor General indicated in the Speech from the Throne, literacy is a priority. This work will be done in co-operation with the provinces, to which this responsibility belongs.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to continue for a few seconds.

I thank you for your response, even though I find it a bit vague. I'm very aware of the numerous initiatives that have been undertaken in Quebec, specifically with respect to literacy in the workplace. I would like it if you could reply in a more specific way, if that would be possible.

I know that in Laval, in my riding, there are groups who work at finding jobs for older people. They work on a psychological factor which is self-esteem, because it's an important factor for older people. There is also literacy and job searches. Could you tell us more about that?

[English]

Mr. Avrim Lazar: Ron, did you have specifics, or should we promise to come back?

Mr. Ron Stewart: Of course I don't have the specifics by riding or anything of that nature.

Essentially, under the Employment Insurance Act, part II...well, you first of all have to be an EI-eligible individual to have access to these benefits. In 1998-99, about $2.3 billion was spent on what we call part II benefits.

There were some short-term items, like trying to turn people around rapidly from unemployment to an employment situation, which means counselling, job-finding clubs, and things of that nature. Of course there are longer-term types of interventions, like self-employment assistance, training, and things of that nature—trying to upgrade the skills of individuals.

One of the really important changes that took place under EI, part II, was the fact that we've gone to the individual making the decision, versus the old days where essentially the government used to buy a block of seats at a community college and then basically say “We have 20 seats available for plumbers, so you're going to be trained as a plumber.” We've gotten out of that game and really put it into the hands of the individuals.

For older workers, I can state quite clearly that they are participating in the part II benefits at about slightly less than half the rate of the EI clientele more generally. None of this is forced, of course; these are individual choices. They're made aware of what's available, but for reasons of their own choosing, they are participating at a far lower level in these programs.

We have some results by type of intervention. What I can do is put that kind of package together and make it available to the committee.

The Chair: We'd be very grateful, Ron, if you would do that.

I'm going to move on, Raymonde, if that's okay.

Next is Angela Vautour, and then it's Judi Longfield. Then it's the chair, not for a question but a comment, and then we're into the second round. I already have four people for the second round.

Angela.

Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Thank you for the presentation.

I've been listening to the questions that have been asked and to what we've been hearing. I think we have two types of older workers in this country. I think Marie has mentioned it. We do have rural Canada, and I think a few people from central Canada have to go out there to see how things are working—or not working.

I think we have two kinds of older workers. We have the full-time year-round workers who lose their jobs, and we have the full-time seasonal workers who actually are available for training in their off-season, but nothing is being done about it. There's the added burden that these seasonal workers have less income, because their UI cheques are smaller in their downtime, and they go weeks and months with no income, because of the last round of cuts to UI and because of the problem of putting rural communities with urban when it comes to zoning these areas. This can be fixed if the government wants to do it. The problem is it's not happening.

• 1215

We have to stop looking at the problems. We know what the problems are out there. If we don't know by now, we never will. We have to start acting.

We know illiteracy in rural Canada especially is very, very high. You're saying we can't address.... It's as if you want a national program again that is not necessarily going to meet the needs of both urban and rural Canada. Until we recognize that, nobody is going to find a solution to this.

We have people who receive UI every year in rural Canada. They would love to go out there and get some training, get something decent, something organized, something with a future, something with a vision. It has never been seen.

We have thrown together different projects. Usually about March 15—and I see this in New Brunswick—they'll say they're starting something on April 1. They still don't know on March 15 what's going to happen, but they know there are going to be people in classrooms somewhere doing something. They might be playing cards or playing musical chairs, as we've seen, and I'm talking of exactly what I've seen. They're playing musical chairs or they're shown how to play solitaire on a computer—people who can't read or write.

Let's give them that opportunity. Let's do it. Let's not just talk about it. Let's do it. The problem is there. We cannot expect these people to go out there. Especially once they're over 50, it's even more difficult. But let's give them a chance. Let's not decide we want them way up here when they have to start down here. That's what we've been seeing.

When are we going to see this action? When are we really going to see this coming out in our rural communities and saying, gee, we can tell these people, this is what's out there for you if you want it? Let's give them an incentive to do it. There are ways if we work bottom-up. We can't find the solutions here. We can't find them, and this committee can't find them. We have to go and let these people tell us what they need and what works for them.

Transportation is a big problem in rural Canada. I was talking to an employer this week. One person got sick, and he lost four employees. There were three depending on that car. Do we think about it? We don't have....

There are problems out there, and we have to address them if we want these people to get retrained and have an opportunity to work. What is being done in that way? What has been done?

Mr. Avrim Lazar: Ron, do you want to speak to what training is available to seasonal workers when they're on EI?

Mr. Ron Stewart: All unemployed workers who are EI-eligible are in effect eligible for the part II measures, as we call them. In New Brunswick that has been totally transferred to the province. In the other provinces in Atlantic Canada it's a shared responsibility. In Quebec it's been totally transferred to the province. In Ontario it's a federal responsibility. It's a mixed situation across the country. In the three prairie provinces it's all been transferred, and in B.C. it's joint. But the individuals are certainly entitled.

The capacity across the country of the educational facilities and the location of them vary greatly of course, and the types of courses available vary. One of the big things we really hope to accomplish in giving the individual the decision on the type of training that person would want to pursue is that there would be a response to providing that. In other words, if there were sufficient demand for types of skills upgrading or training, the system would respond by making that available.

Ms. Angela Vautour: Can I add another question?

The Chair: Yes, Angela.

Ms. Angela Vautour: See, the thing is, while we talk about this training over here, this person can't read or write. Let's put aside training right now. Let's get this person to read and write first. We have to start small. We have to start thinking bottom.

• 1220

Let's not forget now that in rural Canada, if you want to go to some technical school, you have to move out of your community. In a lot of areas you have to move; you're not going to drive there. But we'll move them if we can get them read and write. We'll find a way. But we have to start right at the bottom. It's just that sometimes—and we all do it—we think too high up there, thinking we're going to accomplish getting this group out there becoming professionals. But these persons might....

Actually, in seasonal industries, they still have a job, but they have a serious problem because they have no income, because the duration of their claim is too short now, and they can't find anything in between because they're totally dependent on that job.

So how do we fix that? Actually, that is a serious problem for these workers. They are the older workers who can't find that second job out there because they don't have the tools they need to do it. So we have to break it down. We just cannot come out with a formula that is going to address everything; we have to go down to the communities and do that.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: We certainly agree that illiteracy has be a very high priority and that the solutions have to be developed community by community, and the programs have to be responsive to those. There's no disagreement on that.

Ms. Angela Vautour: There is a need for money with that.

The Chair: Serge Bertrand.

Mr. Serge Bertrand: If you would like information on the literacy issue, we've mentioned that we're doing lessons learned and what works and doesn't work. We're just completing that—

Ms. Angela Vautour: We have that.

Mr. Serge Bertrand: —and we can make that available.

Ms. Angela Vautour: We have information. I've also been in discussion with people who actually teach literacy, and they're down to two people from what, four or five years ago, was a class of twenty-some, and then they're probably going to close down the classes.

Another problem when these workers are trying to get literate is that they actually have so many problems with the UI department that they end up having to wait five or six weeks for that one cheque they depend on. We have to look at all those issues. It's a problem for them. It's so complicated with the UI department that they can't afford to risk not getting a cheque for six weeks, so they stay home.

The Chair: Angela, that's fine. I appreciate it. Thank you very much.

I have Judi Longfield, then the chair very briefly, and then we're on the second round. I have five people on the list for the second round.

Judi Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the profile of older workers that we received, and what is there is good. I'm more concerned about what isn't there.

When we look at unemployment rates and we do them by age and province, nowhere do I see a gender breakdown on peak areas that applies to older workers. I don't see a breakdown with respect to labour sector. How many of them would be in the skilled trades? How many are in retail or manufacturing or are white-collar workers, or in natural resources or resource-based industries—agriculture, mining, forestry and fishery?

The reason I'm asking that is that I would suspect that the kinds of training that would be made available would differ greatly, depending on the labour sector you came from.

I worked for many years with literacy programs and actually worked in those old programs where we did retraining, and part of the problem we found is that people are sometimes very reluctant to enter a retraining program, particularly if they're illiterate, because we focus all our energy on making them literate. I lived in a mining community, and we found out that for a number of folks, the barrier was that they were afraid to admit that they were illiterate, so they didn't participate in another upgrading program.

Once we got past that barrier—saying, you know, literacy may not be your barrier here; you used to be a miner, but now you could be a bricklayer or a plumber—if they felt that they didn't have to admit that they were illiterate, they were much more receptive to a retraining program.

The other problem we seem to have is that we have a number appearing at over 55 years of age, white collar, from whom, for some reason or another, there has been a downgrading or a shrinkage in the workforce in their particular business. These are well-educated, highly skilled people. Their only barrier is age. It's very difficult for them to participate in retraining because they have an incredible amount of education and training, and it's a job search or just getting past that barrier of age.

What kinds of statistics do we have, and what kinds of programs do we have, that can address those particular problems?

Mr. Avrim Lazar: In regard to the statistics, I'll ask Mr. Voyer.

• 1225

Mr. Jean-Pierre Voyer: I'm glad you mentioned that the government does have a literacy program. I think it's a big issue. There's a lot of activity in this area in working with communities and working with the private sector. Even the Conference Board of Canada is doing a really good campaign of alerting the business community of their responsibility for literacy in the workplace, as mentioned by Madame Folco.

On your question with respect to the gender breakdown, unfortunately you basically picked an area where we didn't provide the unemployment rate by gender. If you look at other statistics, though, in terms of earnings and participation rate, the general rule is that women do better in terms of older workers, if they are in the labour market. We find the same phenomenon on the youth side. The problems with the labour market nowadays in terms of the real difficulty seem to be flagging men.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Is that because of the sectors they're in? Is it because they're in fisheries, in mining, in those kinds of activities?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Voyer: As a researcher, I never give a clear answer if I don't have the answer for sure. Your hypothesis is the first one I would look at. It is common sense that the concentration of employees is indeed higher for men in areas that get closed because they're “old sector”. It used to be the case that a man with low skills could compensate with experience and strength in many of these areas. Women came into the labour force later, and they came into the service area. So they're more resilient, if you like, to the type of structural shock that Avrim talked about at the beginning.

We can produce the statistics for you on men and women, but overall, I suspect you'll find that women are doing better, even on the unemployment side; I'm pretty sure of that. The breakdown by sectors is insightful. I think that's exactly what we have to do. The solution for the fishery is not the same as the solution for somebody who is educated and is being displaced. The barriers are not the same. You mentioned age discrimination; I would submit that's an hypothesis. We have mixed evidence about age discrimination. For older workers that are educated there is less difficulty, but there might be other types of barriers.

The Chair: Shall we receive those figures, then, Judi, as a committee? Would you like to?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Voyer: I certainly can send—

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Oh, definitely.

The Chair: We would be grateful. Thank you very much.

Judi, thank you very much.

I have a couple of comments and then I'm going to go to Rey Pagtakhan as the first of the five; we'll go rapidly around a second time.

Actually, I don't want any responses. I first of all want to pick up on the rural Canada point, and this, by the way, is not to you as witnesses. I'm addressing this through you to the department.

The withdrawal of HRDC from rural Canada is of great concern to many members of Parliament. I understand the point that Ron made about other ways of getting information there and I'm glad that's being done. We have the community access points and we have HRDC hooking in with the community access points, and that's going very well. But the analogy with the banks, which Larry mentioned, is actually very well taken. We understand why it is that a bank branch can't be viable in some very tiny communities. We also understand that even to put a bank machine in you need service, a certain number of customers, and stuff like that. We understand all of that.

But our sense in the rural communities is that we do everything we can in the technological sense to cover the rural communities, and then, as Ron said, we do everything conceivable, as we are trying to do in the case of the banks, to replace the bank branch not just with a machine but with a machine-plus. It might be a coalition of the insurance people or other financial experts that are in that area. So I mention that to you: HRDC has to look very carefully, I think, at the real costs of withdrawing from rural Canada.

Now, my second comment is this. It has to do with what I think Bryon Wilfert mentioned. I noticed—I was not on the committee—that in producing this particular report, the committee did not have much time. It expresses in the report the concern it had. This is a very important issue in our society, and I think the committee hoped that more would be done. It certainly hoped there would be a more detailed response.

Avrim, I appreciated your comment that you would be interested in the—I know you're following up on these things—committee following up on these matters. We've been going through a number of our committee's reports. This one, I would think, left the most loose ends, and the committee knew that. So if you have any suggestions as to what we might do in the future in this area, we would be glad to receive them. Also, as for any priorities in your minds—I know you've been expressing some—we would be very glad to receive them.

• 1230

Those comments are not for you. They are for the record.

I'll go Rey Pagtakhan. This is going to be very brief, colleagues, as we have four others on the list.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you.

When I walk down the streets in my constituency, it is not infrequent to hear people say that at age 55 they would like to retire. It's a fact. We hear it from many. So why I asked the question on the face of gradual retirement...now, when you look at the total claimants of EI—2.4 million—the older workers constitute 9%, but only 1% made use of the employment benefits and support measures, versus 30% of those under 55 who made use of these measures. Why?

Mr. Avrim Lazar: Well, Jean-Pierre won't hypothesize, so I'll turn it over to Ron, who runs the program.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Very briefly.

Mr. Ron Stewart: I'll try to be very brief, Mr. Chair. I think some of the stuff has already been out on the table today.

There's a traditional degree of self-sufficiency among older workers. Turning to government is not necessarily their preferred option as a first choice.

There are literacy issues. As one member pointed out, people don't want it made apparent to the community that they're illiterate. There might be the feeling that these other jobs are just beyond what they can be trained to do. We talk about the information age and all this kind of stuff, but it's absolutely ridiculous to think that you're going to take a semi-literate or illiterate gentleman in his late fifties, who has worked in manual occupations all his life, with a low need of literacy, and turn him into a computer programmer. So—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: If I may interrupt, Mr. Stewart, in light of the answers or the things you were telling us, could you explain the meaning of that figure, the category 55 to 64 versus 65...? Between the two age groups, regarding those who obtain self-employment, only 3% of those in the 55-to-64 category obtain self-employment, but about 13% of those 65 and older obtain self-employment. What is the likely explanation for that?

The Chair: If you can, do it briefly. If not, by the way, it's the sort of information you might provide us with.

Mr. Ron Stewart: The only thing I can think of, without actually getting hold of these individuals and asking them why, is that it's a matter of choice. Perhaps people who have been workers for 30 years don't really feel that now is the time to become self-employed. I'm just guessing here. Without actually going to the actual individuals and asking them why they made these particular choices, I can't go beyond that.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, if I may...?

The Chair: As long as it's very short, Rey, seriously.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes.

The reason I'm probing this question is that, following up on the question of one of our colleagues, unless we come to the real reason behind this, we will be doing, like in medicine, band-aid treatment because we are not getting at the underlying cause. The reason I asked this is that the research mythology has to be probing in terms of finding these root causes. You may have 100 or 50 or what have you. The questions have to be bold, assuming nothing. If we can come up with the revelation, then, I think, and only then, can we find a meaningful answer in the approach to solutions. It may be more than one, more than three, more than ten—and it has to be specific for a given cause.

The Chair: Maurice Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm addressing my question to any or all of the witnesses here.

I'd like to know what the underlying premise is, you might say, in terms of the department. I'll propose something here for you. I'm wondering if this is the approach or the premise here. Is it that as we ease people...let's just, for figures to use, say that we ease 10% of the the older people into retirement. They transition into retirement. Do we then assume that opens up that 10% of the labour force for younger and new entrants to employment? Is that the kind of premise you operate on?

• 1235

Mr. Avrim Lazar: No. The difficulty is that some jobs close down and other jobs open up. There is constant change in the economy in terms of some jobs disappearing and other jobs being created. The creation of jobs in the last ten years has been very encouraging. It's not that if five lumberjacks retire, five people are going to get a job in the forests. The structure of those industries is changing, and the availability of the raw resource is changing.

So we're not thinking of easing people out to bring people in. We're more worried about the ones whose jobs no longer exist, as to how to help them re-enter the economy.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right, okay. That was an astute answer to the trap I was setting for you.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: Well, later you can tell me what the trap was so I'll know what I can expect.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I don't believe that, you know. Economists have disproved this whole idea that the employment opportunities that are out there are a constant, that the pie is only so big. There are those who operate under that premise. There are even certain unions, I think, that operate assuming that is the case. I'm not saying it's all necessarily that way, though.

It brings me to the question, then, that we seem to have this thing with pension eligibility and all kinds of other things that assumes that at some magic number, age 65 or whatever.... I would think the more we keep in the workforce, the longer the possible.... And I know you do share that side of it. So why do we have these artificial categories, such as that at age 65 people should be moving on, moving out? We make it in terms of public-private pensions. There are incentives there. It's built in such that it's assumed that's the case.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, very briefly.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is there a way to remove some of that? I would disagree with some of those artificial distinctions that assume that. And we set it up by way of pensions—private and so on.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: Our Canadian pension system is recognized worldwide as one of the best because it has a mix of private, public, etc. But like all other pension systems, it was created a long time ago, and its basic premises haven't changed. And as we've moved to a greatly changed demographic and as the capacity of seniors to contribute over the years has changed rather dramatically because of improvements in health care, we do want to look in the longer term as to whether or not there can be pension change. That's not on the short term, it's really on the longer-term horizon. But you're right, there are questions worth exploring there.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So you would be at some point figuring to do that, maybe—not as your first order of priority but some—

Mr. Avrim Lazar: We are already doing some of the background work, but it's not policy work, it's research work.

The Chair: Paul Crête, then very briefly, two government members. Paul.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Last week, I visited a sawmill where I met with about forty workers aged 62 to 65. If they had asked me to do their job, I would not have any fingers left today, and I would no longer be able to do the work. If these people were required to train for another job, the gulf would be just as great, as it would be for me.

Since you appear to reject taking active and passive measures for these people, do you not think that the pilot project option as provided for in the Employment Insurance Act, and which has been used for short weeks, might prove to be a good way for a 63 year- old worker who decides to leave his job to be entitled to employment insurance which he would have got had his job disappeared and to stretch the benefits over a two-year period, instead of a one-year period, until he reaches the age of 65? Although we would have to work out the terms and conditions, would this option be available under the section of the Act that deals with pilot projects? In this manner, we would be able to deal with the needs of a clientele that, at any rate, cannot be retrained.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: The provisions of the legislation are very technical, and I cannot give you an immediate answer. One of the requirements of the legislation stipulates that a pilot project must facilitate entry into the job market. Even if we were to call on our lawyers for assistance, it would be very difficult for us to interpret the Act to mean that a pilot project could be used to facilitate workers leaving the labour force. We would have to amend the legislation in order to do this.

Mr. Paul Crête: Back to the B.S. space.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That's right.

[English]

The Chair: Thanks, Paul.

Bryon Wilfert, then Larry McCormick. And then that's the end.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: You're lucky that these people are nice.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I have a general comment, first of all, and then a question.

• 1240

Obviously you gentlemen are all familiar with Professor Foot's work of Boom Bust & Echo 2000. We know that over the last two decades, the situation has deteriorated for older workers. The train is coming. We see it coming. We're not well prepared for it.

We're looking for action on this committee; we're not looking for long-term think-tanks. We're talking about human tragedies each day, each individual. And I see them each day. People come into the office who are displaced.

I'll make a very quick general comment. One of the things that annoys me to no end—it annoyed me with the last minister and I've told this minister the same thing—is that when you're unemployed, suddenly you wait four weeks to get any benefits. Now, this may happen all of a sudden, and you're not prepared. People don't prepare to be unemployed. I know the rules, the two-week waiting period, etc. I think that should be pared down, gentlemen, to two weeks. It shouldn't take four weeks. I think it's ludicrous, and I say as a general comment that I'd like to see action on that, and I'd like to see it quickly.

I have a quick question on the phased-in retirement. I know the department had requested a report. It was done by William M. Mercer Limited. It wasn't published. I would like to get a copy of it. It talked about phased-in retirement, and I think it would be of interest to the committee.

You know, one of the things that I don't want, as a member of Parliament, is to be involved in reports that at the end of the day are dust collectors. I was on one committee where I pulled out practically the exact recommendations from seven years before, and they still hadn't been acted on. You know, if we don't get the action, we'll obviously be looking for those who can deliver it. So I would suggest, on behalf of the committee, that we move quickly on this. All the information is out there. It's a question of bringing it together, synthesizing it, and moving forward.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: We'll be happy to share the Mercer report with you. Mr. Voyer says he has it in his office. It's part of our overall study of aging.

I just want to make one quick comment. The difficulty we're facing now—and we certainly share the concern that it is a painful difficulty of older workers who are being displaced—is that we don't see that as an expanding phenomenon, because the people who are in the workforce now are actually better educated and will be able to withstand the shock of structural changes much better. Also, because of the demographics, because of the bust after the boom, people are going to be begging people who are coming up...to stay working until they drop. We do have a terrible problem now. I'm not certain we'll have the same problem later. I think the problem we're going to have later will be that we won't be able to find the workers, not that we won't be able to find the jobs.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I would argue, though, Mr. Chairman, that age discrimination and the fact that it costs more for an older worker.... If I, as a teacher, have 25 years experience and I'm suddenly unemployed.... You try to put a 25-year experienced teacher out there versus someone who comes out of the faculty, and nine times out of nine you will get the younger person. Why? Because who wants to pay $65,000 or $70,000 versus $35,000? It isn't happening, gentlemen. I'm getting more in my office.

The Chair: Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to make a closing comment with this very distinguished list of witnesses we have from HRDC. I'm a great believer in HRDC.

It was interesting earlier this year to see the government side of the House say that it's alarming that we have a two-tier health system in this country; and that is not between the rich and the poor, but between urban and rural. I'm glad we're using the word “two-tier”. I would hate to ever go toward “two-class”. So I ask each of you people, in your most responsible positions, to realize that it is not just within our health care services that we have this perceived and real two-tier service.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Colleagues, on your behalf, I'd like to thank our witnesses: Avrim Lazar, Ron Stewart, Jean-Pierre Voyer, Serge Bertrand, and Marie-France Kingsley. We really appreciate your being here and we look forward to receiving the various items that we mentioned. As far as I'm concerned, your answers were very clear and very concise, and as chair, I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Mr. Avrim Lazar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We look forward to working with the committee when you call us as you continue deliberations. We did hear a request for some suggestions as to what sort of work would most likely influence policy, and we'll be getting back to you.

The Chair: We do appreciate that. Thank you. And while you're leaving, we have to move on to other business on our agenda.

But before we do that—and I know there are few of us—I'd like to comment again on the way the committee is operating. I say this to you all, and we can discuss it again.

• 1245

Paul asked me early on, “How many minutes do we have?” I would much sooner, in a discussion of this type, have it so that it's reasonably flexible and in fact we don't tie ourselves to very precise timelines or overly precise procedures of going from one side to the other. I try to track the time to be sure the colleagues who represent the opposition and the minority get their fair share. I think, in the end, we get better discussion.

Colleagues, could we move to the motion of Paul Crête? The first one is with respect to the Auditor General.

Paul, would you like to read it and speak to it briefly?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will do so quickly. I have already discussed the purpose of this motion with representatives from the government's side.

I move that the committee receive the Auditor General to learn his reaction to the government response to the unanimous report of the Human Resources Committee on the Social Insurance Number.

We had an important debate on this issue and I believe that, further to the comments we received, it would be interesting to have the Auditor General appear before us and tell us what he thinks about the response.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, I would second the motion.

The Chair: We don't need a seconder, but you mean you support it.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I do believe it is an appropriate request and one we can support.

The Chair: Is there any other discussion? I call this motion. You heard Paul Crête's motion.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Now, Paul, would you do the same with the second motion, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I have already submitted the text of my second motion and I would like to suggest a minor amendment. You can tell me, Mr. Chairman, how I should proceed.

I move that the Committee on Human Resources hear from representatives of the Millennium Foundation before the December adjournment, if required, after hearing from the Minister.

I have added the words “if required after hearing from the Minister”.

If we obtain, when we meet with the Minister, all of the answers to our questions about the Millennium Scholarships, we would not necessarily have to invite the representatives of the Foundation to appear. However, if we don't have time to deal with this problem in adequate fashion... There is the matter of scholarships for Quebec, but there is also the question of accountability. The two officials told us that they...

[English]

The Chair: Can I procedurally handle that first of all? Paul, you're suggesting that there actually be an amendment to the written motion before us, and the amendment is:

[Translation]

“if required after hearing from the Minister”.

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. By the way, I assume we accept that as a friendly amendment to the motion before us.

Bryon Wilfert. We're discussing the amended motion.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I would accept that as a friendly amendment. It's appropriate that we wait until after the minister. It may mean it will not occur until after the break, but it's a reasonable amendment and one that makes a lot of sense. We have to hear the minister, see what she says, and then decide to go from there.

The Chair: If I might, I'll just make a comment. I am not sure what our relationship is with the Millennium Foundation. Though we may in fact, Paul, be inviting them, it's up to them how they respond. So as long as that's understood, as chair, technically I'm comfortable with the way this is written.

Judi Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: To clarify, I was wondering if we could just say “invite representatives from the Millennium Foundation”. Instead of saying “hear from”, we could just say “invite” them to come.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Fine, there is no problem with that. Should she refuse, we would have to deal with a huge accountability problem. We will see what happens.

[English]

The Chair: So colleagues, in English it would be that the committee on human resources development invite representatives of the Millennium Foundation to appear before the December adjournment and, if necessary, after we have met with the minister.

Is there any other discussion? I call the motion before us.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to debate this question to great length, but I'm wondering when we will be reexamining the issue of older workers. Will this be a priority for the full committee or are we going to set up a subcommittee? I don't want to discuss the matter now. I simply want to know when we will talk about the issue.

[English]

The Chair: Can I comment on it? This applies to your motion too. In fact we likely have one possible free day, maybe two, in our schedule. It depends how the House of Commons unfolds. I would like to suggest that we use at least one of those to consider what we will have done by that time and to give some preliminary thought to what we will be doing when we come back in the New Year.

• 1250

As to Paul's point, I think we will take it under advisement for that time.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Just to follow up, have we heard from the department with respect to the questions I posed on the statistics on CPP disability?

The Clerk of the Committee: Not yet, no. As soon as we get them, I'll distribute them to all members.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: But can we give a reminder to them? “As soon as we get them” may be one year later, and I think within a week or two would be a reasonable time.

The Clerk: Okay.

The Chair: By all means.

I would point out to you that our next meeting, December 2, will be the report of the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities and the government's response to it, which, by the way, we have received.

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Not knowing whether or not it would be possible, I think it would be interesting for the Minister to appear before the committee in camera, either before or after the public meeting, to discuss the issue that was brought up a number of times now regarding the behaviour of the Department of Human Resources Development employees and the information that we've received. This is not an official proposal, but I think that it would be useful to discuss this in camera with the Minister.

[English]

The Chair: So you're not suggesting an in camera meeting to replace the meeting.

Mr. Paul Crête: No, no.

The Chair: Okay.

As we know, the minister is coming, but her time is very restricted between now and Christmas. As chair, I will make that inquiry on behalf of the committee.

Any further business, colleagues?

Until Thursday, the meeting is adjourned.