I will make my introductory remarks in English, but my colleague, Diane Galarneau, who will do most of the presentation, will present in French. As usual, I will be happy to answer questions in the language of your choice.
I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to present some background information for your work on engaging experience: opportunities for older persons in the workforce.
I will give you a few caveats. Statistics Canada does not collect information on a regular basis that would look at employment opportunities or barriers for older workers.
Every month we conduct our Canadian labour force survey, which measures labour market participation and employment for the population 15 years of age and over. We do have participation rates and labour market information for older workers. However, information on barriers or intentions for retirement, for example, are collected on an irregular basis. The last time we collected some information was through our general social survey that was done in 2007, so the information is a bit dated. We also had a survey that was done in 2008 on a cost-recovery basis that focused on older workers.
We'll present a bit of information on labour market participation and some trends we've seen over the last 25 to 50 years. Then we'll present a bit of information on what we have in terms of intentions to retire, some of the reasons why people choose to retire and some factors that could affect their intention to retire.
On this note, Diane, please take over.
On page 2 of the presentation, you can see that the participation rate of persons aged 55 and older is increasing. There have been many changes since 1976 in terms of the group of persons aged 55 and older. The proportion of this demographic within the general population has increased. While the demographic represented 17% of the total population in 1976, in 2011 that proportion had increased to 27%. Based on Statistics Canada's Demosim projection model, this demographic will make up more than one-third of the total population by 2031.
Education levels have also increased. The graph on the left side of the slide shows that, between 1996 and 2012, the proportion of persons aged 55 and older with less than a high school diploma—1996 is in grey and 2012 is in blue—went from 52% to 27%, while the proportion of this demographic with a university degree went from 8% to 18%.
The graph on the right shows participation rates, which also increased between 1996 and 2012, particularly among women. The participation rate represents the number of persons employed and unemployed compared to the overall population. For men, there was an increase of 11 percentage points between 1996 and 2012. That is the black line. The rate went from 32% to 43% between 1996 and 2012. However, the rate in 2012 remained lower than that in 1976, which was 47.2%.
For women, the participation rate increased by nearly 15 percentage points, from 17% to 32%, following a period of stability between 1976 and 1996.
Let's move on to slide 3.
While there has been widespread increase in the participation rate across all age groups since 1996, this increase was greatest in relative terms for persons aged 65 to 69. They are represented by the black line. For men, the rate practically doubled, from 16.5% to 30%, while for women the rate increased from 7% to 19%.
The red line, representing the group of persons aged 60 to 64, also shows a significant increase in percentage points, namely 15 percentage points for men and 22 points for women. There is also a significant increase for women aged 55 to 59—the blue line—of 21 percentage points.
As you can see on page 4, the participation rate goes up as the level of educational attainment does. The graph on the left shows the numbers for men, and the one on the right, for women. Since 1996, participation rates have increased for all levels of educational attainment and have been more pronounced among women. The gap between men and women by educational attainment has shrunk since 1996. In 2012, men's participation rate went from 24% to 50%, based on the level of educational attainment, and from 12% to 45% for women.
As you can see on page 5, the proportion of full-time workers decreases as you move up the age groups. In 2012, the proportion of men and women aged 55 and over and working full-time was lower than for workers aged 25 to 44. The numbers are relatively stable over time for men, and have been since 1996, but are increasing among women, particularly those aged 60 to 69. The proportion increased by 8 and 9 percentage points, respectively, going from 61% to 69% for women aged 60 to 64, and from 42% to 51% for women aged 65 to 69.
On slide 6, you can see that workers aged 50 and over have been more likely to remain longer in the labour market since 1996. In 2009, a worker aged 50 could expect to spend 16.3 more years in the labour market before retiring. This is an increase of 2.5 years compared to the low observed in 1996, when the expected number of years to remain in the labour market was 12.7 years.
If we convert that into age, workers in the labour market aged 50 have seen their retirement age go from 62.7 years in 1996 to 66.3 years in 2012.
In 1977, the retirement age was lower than in 2012 and was 64.3 years. Those durations are comparable by gender and educational attainment. A good part of the increase in life expectancy observed since 1996 is therefore reflected in the labour market. Retirement duration is therefore stable in terms of years.
On page 7, you can see that health is, however, likely to limit growth potential for years of work. On average, people are more likely to have serious disabilities after age 75. That varies by income. Serious disabilities begin at about age 72 for low-income men and at about age 77 for people who have a higher income.
Let's move on to page 8.
The following slides deal with retirement. Retirement is a complex process. Data on the subject usually deals with a subjective definition of retirement. In other words, respondents say whether they are retired or not. However, people who say they are retired today may later return to the labour market. So we don't know if people are fully retired. In one cycle of our General Social Survey, conducted in 2007, we asked questions about retirement intentions.
Let's go to page 9.
When we asked Canadians aged 45 to 59 if they were certain about their planned age of retirement, 61% said they were very certain or quite certain about their age of retirement, and 39% said they were not at all certain about when they would retire or did not intend to retire.
On page 10, for the 61% of Canadians aged 45 to 59 who had reported the age at which they intended to retire—so who were certain or quite certain of their retirement age—we examined the characteristics of those who planned to retire at 65 or later. For all workers aged 45 to 59, 37% planned to retire at 65 or later. The proportion was higher among recent immigrants. It was 60%. It was 48% for single people living alone. It was higher for self-employed workers, at about 47%. It was higher for people in homes where the family income was $40,000 or less. That proportion was 62%.
Workers in Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and Manitoba were also less likely to retire after age 65. The proportion was 30%, whereas the Canadian average is 37.5%. We also noted significantly different proportions based on industrial sector, by profession, by health, and housing tenure, in other words whether people owned their homes or rented.
On page 11, we also asked people aged 50 and over, who had initially retired between 1997 and 2007, why they retired. Multiple responses were allowed. The reason mentioned the most often was that people wanted to stop working. After that, they said that they had sufficient income and access to early retirement measures in their jobs. Health problems and stress were mentioned by 26% of respondents, whereas slightly less than 10% of them reported having to look after a loved one. Lay-offs were mentioned by 12% of them, and mandatory retirement measures by 10%. The fact that their skills were outdated was mentioned by 8% of respondents. Reasons like discrimination and having a reduced pension while earning a salary were mentioned by 5% and 7% of respondents.
To conclude, let's look at page 12.
A Survey of Older Workers also asked workers aged 50 to 64 if certain employment conditions would encourage them to retire later. Part-time work and flextime were the two most important factors. Other factors were telework and receiving a pension income while working. Those numbers do not enable us to measure whether the people did indeed remain employed longer because of such measures. Those were simply peoples' intentions.
That concludes my presentation.
Thank you.
We know that there have been cuts at Statistics Canada. Because of that, among other things, several surveys no longer exist. Namely, the detailed questionnaire, or what you call in English the long-form census.
On your website, you mention sampling errors. As you just said, the more respondents there are, the more accurate the estimates are. Consequently, the fewer respondents there are, the less accurate your estimates are. The national survey we now have is based on voluntary participation and not mandatory participation, as was previously the case.
There is also non-response bias. With the voluntary questionnaire, several categories of people don't respond. That means that the non-response bias will be influenced by the fact that several types of people, as you said, no longer respond to the questionnaire.
It says on your website that the results are not representative of the real population. Despite all of the work that you do, unfortunately, because of the cuts, it is less representative. You are also saying that the survey will not have the level of quality that would have otherwise been obtained using the mandatory long-form census.
What kind of information will we be lacking in the future to make important decisions on issues, for example, like seniors and the labour market?
:
Constituents I talk to and who come in and see me say there is this issue about them re-entering or there's a downsizing in a business they work for, but they're not ready to retire yet. It would be nice to see us drill down a little bit more on those opportunities for individuals, what they are doing and how they're returning. Are they returning on contract work, or are they becoming self-employed?
I had a gentleman in my office last week and that's the route he's taking. He is going to offer his expertise as a consultant, because he had worked for a large insurance company for many years. They had downsized. He's doing that. It would be kind of neat to know what the dynamics of re-entering the workforce are for people in that age group.
They're not ready to retire for whatever reason. You've mentioned many reasons, and many just want to keep working. They have lots to give. They're young. People are living longer, and retiring at 60 or 65 is just not on for a lot of people. They would rather keep engaged in the workforce.
My last question, Mr. Chairman—I know we're running out of time—is in regard to surveying employers. How much is that done, and have you done any surveying of employers to get some of their trends and attitudes around this demographic shift in the age of workers, and of their attitude towards employing people who may have never worked for them but now they're ready to hire somebody who is 55?
Have you been able to do any surveying around that or get any labour market information from the employer perspective about their views of older workers?
I'll try to get back on track.
Thank you very much for being here today.
We had a professor from the University of Ottawa at the last meeting who said that we need to change the way we look at the demographics of population and age. I suggested that we had the gospel of Freedom 55. That was the ultimate. If you could retire at 55, that was just great. But actually, retirement is not just great at 65, because you can have productive years after.
What I'm getting at is this: when you do your stats, it says “age 55 and older”, as if 56 is older. I wonder if we should start changing those terms to reflect the health of the people. Often, younger people don't start careers or really get their act together until they're in their thirties. So that is something I think we need to do as a society. It affects StatsCan, too, because you do your surveys based on those sorts of bases. I think that our terminology should change. Maybe we should talk about our “mature” workers instead of “older” workers. Of course, you might think I'm reflecting on this because I'm an older person, but I feel that I still have many productive years left.
This is something we have a problem with. We hear all the time that eligibility for different benefits is being lowered. But we're offering those benefits at a different time in life, even though they're still as healthy as they were 20 years ago, when they were eligible for those benefits.
First, have you ever looked at starting at 62 to 72? You could call those older workers and see what's happening with that group, rather than dipping into the 55 to 62. I wonder if there would be a significant difference in your outcomes if you compared that. That's one question.
Second, this is not just a Canadian challenge; it's also in Europe and the United States. Have you looked at any of the statistics coming out of other countries and compared them to see how they're managing to allow mature workers to stay in the workforce?
Finally, as to the mature workers, do you find that they are just wanting to stay and work in their career paths and that they've upgraded their training or skills so they can continue, or do you find that the older workers are leaving their career paths and going into a new career where they have to be retrained?
There are a lot of questions there.
:
Right. The other thing that's interesting—the one statistic that comes into play—is when you go to page 11, you see outdated skills being such a minor reason, around 8%, that's given for early retirement. That was a surprising statistic. We hear all the time from the aggressive socialist separatist people that these things aren't happening. Their frame of reference, frankly, is that this isn't happening. So when you come to see this, and you start to look at the trends and the demographics and what the real facts are, that people are out there wanting to work longer, and are wanting to postpone.... My age group, the end of the baby boomers, is wanting to postpone retirement for various reasons, and you say it is basically a conscious decision of just wanting to work longer because you feel young—you're 60 years old and you feel like you're 18. You can keep going, and lots of things start happening.
I think these trends are what we need to understand, especially in light of what we're looking at here. What are the opportunities for these people? Are we presenting them with enough opportunities in society?
When you come to the argument that changing the OAS age to 67 is just a natural thing that many countries have done, our chief actuary plots the demographics, plots the life expectancy, plots all that, and then tells us that the reality is that people are living longer. They are healthier and they want to work longer, so it's what most advanced countries have moved toward, that kind of system.
I want to come back to that last trend you're seeing. I know you are statisticians and you don't have the statistics, and I'm talking very subjectively here, but as far as these trends go, is it fair to say again, just to reinforce the facts, that all of these trends are just showing larger numbers of healthier people living longer and working longer? That's what I would call a natural part of the evolution of our society.
:
Thank you for that response.
I may mention, as I mentioned to Mr. Boulerice, that these extra commentaries that are somewhat partisan are hardly helpful to the study we have before us, and of course if one member engages, the others do, and it just keeps going that way. So I would ask members to take that into account. It's hardly useful for the study.
Having said that, we've completed a full round, which is something we haven't done in a long time, to the point where it almost seems extraordinary. But we have done that.
I'd like to thank the witnesses appearing before us for providing the information to us. I know you had some undertakings that you would provide some additional information. When you do that, just pass it on to the clerk and we'll be sure it is distributed. Thank you very much for that.
With that, we'll suspend for a few moments.
:
Perfect. I think I came with all my friends, but being a good New Brunswick emergency room nurse, you get a call on Friday to appear and you prepare and do the job. So I'm glad I'm here.
If there are mistakes in my presentation, please accept my apology. You will receive a full brief from us by the end of this month, and hopefully we won't have as many graphs and numbers as Statistics Canada just gave you, but it is a good focus.
I will focus my presentation on the impact of the aging population and workforce and how the federal government can help.
We represent over 200,000 nurses and student nurses across the country. We are the largest profession within health care. We represent about 70% of the workforce. I'll use my time today to address the following needs in our health care system. First of all, it's the boom and bust approach to health and human resources. I was chatting with an MP about his daughter who is into nursing, and there are no jobs right now, but there will be jobs in three or four years. It's because we do not know how to plan in health care. It is the boom and bust approach. I've been around these committees and provincial committees in New Brunswick for a number of years.
We need immediate investment in retention and recruitment strategies, both for the older workers and the new graduates. We need the federal government to take a strong leadership role in workforce planning. Every province and territory could get some help there.
If I look at the nursing shortage and its impact specifically, we know that all governments, including the federal government, and employers have done a lot of work over the last 10 years in increasing and retaining nurses, but the shortage is far from over. The Canadian Nurses Association predicted a shortfall of over 60,000 nurses by 2022. That was in 2009. The study and the numbers haven't changed since then.
We know that the new nurses entering the profession have increased. If you look at the CIHI number, you would think our world should be a lot better, but you have to realize that in 1990 we were graduating 12,000 nurses a year, and we went from 12,000 to 4,000 by the end of 1999. We're up to about 9,000 today, but we still have the bulk of nurses about to retire. The average age of a nurse is 45, but 40% of nurses are 50 years and older.
I'll provide you with a brief snapshot of our workforce. I'm not here to discuss mostly our workforce, but the demographic has to be understood in the context of not only our workforce, but also how our health care system is changing and has to be transformed to adjust and respond to the aging population, new technologies, and new ways of delivering care.
There is greater pressure to meet the needs of a much older patient population with highly acute needs. Today's average life expectancy is over 81. But if I look at just our working-age population—I'm sure Stats Canada gave you those numbers—who are between the ages of 15 and 64, 42% of them are over 45. I just mentioned that for nurses 40% are over the age of 50. So we are older than the average workforce. At the same time, 75% of our nurses work in the hospital sector. If you've been in the hospital sector in recent years, you know we have to change our system and go towards long-term care and home care. We have to change the delivery of services, because a lot of the patients in hospitals do not belong in hospitals.
A recent study done by the Canadian Nurses Association stated that $5 million to $6 million a day is being spent on patients in hospital who should be receiving care in the home. That means they're well enough to be in the home, and if you look at senior people, they want to be in their homes and be taken care of there.
If I look at retention and research, we have done many research projects on retaining our workforce. It is all about working conditions and opportunities for professional development and skills upgrading. If you do that, you will expand the number of nurses extending their career.
We had tremendous success in 2006 and 2011. Our first project was with HRSDC. We had two pilot projects, one in Cape Breton and one in Regina Qu'Appelle. The Cape Breton project was a mentoring project and was unbelievable. We were able to keep the emergency and operating room open by getting experienced nurse training in critical care. In Regina Qu'Appelle it was again a mentoring program.
We followed through with a project with Health Canada in nine provinces and one territory to bring and promote a more positive health care workplace. We've reduced absenteeism by 10% and overtime by 10% with the Health Canada project, which was called Research to Action.
I'm just skimming through it quickly.
There were a number of lessons learned here. It has to be done by partnership. If we want effective and lasting changes, they cannot be imposed from the top down. The program policy needs to be flexible to accommodate the needs of the workplace and the individuals.
What we realized over the last six years of working with health care employers is that when you're implementing a pilot project, or what we're now calling a prototype, this cannot be done at the side of a manager's desk. It must be based on the evidence and research, and it must be evaluated. That's where the federal government can come in and help. We're suggesting this can be done through EI, because they do need financial support. They also need training and professional development in these areas.
Nurses deliver more care than any other group in the health care system. At the same time, we're nearly twice as likely to be absent due to illness and injury than the average of workers in other occupations. That is because of the working conditions. There's a turnaround, which means a nurse is leaving one unit to go to another, mostly because of job dissatisfaction. That happens with 20% of the nurses in the hospital sector. The cost for each nurse is between $25,000 and $60,000 for that employer.
I would stress to you that we cannot replace a nurse with 35 years' experience with a new graduate. The education system has changed dramatically, and so has our health care system. We need to ensure that new graduates benefit from the experience of their older and more seasoned colleagues. This is not a question of retention; it is a question of patient safety.
We know mentorship programs do work. We are recommending that we have programs nationally modelled on the Ontario new graduate guarantees, which support nursing graduates with an opportunity to work with experienced nurses to help enhance their knowledge and skill.
I mentioned earlier how the federal government could help. We believe it is through the EI apprenticeship programs for nurses. We need to have a movement for licensed practical nurses to move up to become registered nurses, or for registered nurses to become specialty nurses or nurse practitioners. And we need to find a way to help employers create mentoring programs to retain older nurses and provide a safe learning work environment for new graduates.
If I had more time I would discuss with you the need to readjust the work hours and work environment for older workers. We will bring you numbers. We know, from workers compensation to long-term care disability programs, that the risk of injury is higher with older workers, especially when modification at the workplace is not done.
To conclude, we believe we need to provide support that will help equip older workers with the skills and competency for the workplace. We need to reintroduce programs such as workplace skill initiatives. We need to support formal mentorship that will encourage the knowledge transfer between workers of generation and skill mix. It is time we moved away from the land of pilot projects to prototypes that will create a culture of safety in health care for all workers, both the young and the more seasoned.
Thank you. I will now answer your questions.
Thank you, Linda, for your presentation. I found it fascinating.
I have a few quick questions and only five minutes, so the more succinct your responses, the better.
First, you mentioned some statistics in terms of nursing graduates, that in 1990 there were 12,000, in 1999 there were 4,000, and today, in 2013, we have 9,000.
I know that in Newfoundland and Labrador alone at one point we had I think three or four nursing schools. Now we have just one, offered through Memorial University.
One of the obvious solutions would be to increase the number of nursing graduates, to increase the number of nursing schools. Why don't we do that?
:
Tell her it is much appreciated.
Before we continue, I would like to say a few words about provincial areas of jurisdiction. As an elected representative of Quebec, I find it rather strange to have the federal government want to take leadership with respect to certain decisions within this area of jurisdiction. After education, health care is probably what is most specifically exclusively under Quebec's jurisdiction.
So, let's talk about employment insurance. At least we will be dealing squarely with an area that is clearly under federal jurisdiction. We will then move on to something else because I would like to call upon your expertise on a matter. However, that will be supplemental. Indeed, I cannot see myself telling the provinces what to do to cross all the t's and dot all their i's. It would not go over well.
It is quite interesting to see that on three occasions, there has been talk of better support for employment insurance. If I understand correctly, it would be to provide continuing education. Intelligent choices were made by some governments over the last 30 years, those that did not dilapidate their EI funds. When they had a surplus, they sat down with representatives from the various occupations to determine what intelligent decisions could be taken with respect to continuing education. In this case, unfortunately, we do not have these tools at our disposal. The fund was dilapidated and now we are being told that it is in a deficit.
Could you tell us what type of initiatives would be most constructive for your profession, in the event that this fund could be recapitalized intelligently over the coming years?
:
A role for the federal government is bringing that flexibility to employers in all regions. Rural regions are probably the worst off in our long-term care sector. If you want to see an older workforce, go into those areas. One reason is because they are so committed to their community they simply can't leave, and that's where you see the 70-year-olds. I don't know about 80-year-olds. But it is about the mentoring. It's about valuing your experience. It's the same for any of us. If tomorrow your employer says you're done, “Too bad what you gave to the system for 30 years, you're done”, that's a shame. But if there's a way to merge between retirement and giving back to your profession or your employer, that's where it will be of benefit.
I know we are not here to discuss societal problems, but it is a reality that today's 60-year-olds are yesterday's 40-year-olds. It's not as if they all feel like they are 18 years old now. Your body makes you realize that you have to slow down in your hours of work. You still have to exercise and sleep more, so you are not that 18-year-old or 25-year-old; you are simply a lucky and healthy 60-year-old who will work longer if you take care of yourself. Taking care of yourself is making sure you have a healthy work environment. That's for everyone, and for nurses even more so, because it is heavy, it's 24/7, and you're dealing with patients.
When I work as a nurse, I don't deal with reports. I cannot say, okay, if nobody shows up for the committee, we'll close early. It's a patient lying in a bed, as you would know as a surgeon, so it's very important to look at.
So yes, it's mentoring, it's part-time jobs, and of course you have to look at people's pensions and how that's related, but that's almost an employee to employer issue, and they're very well protected in nursing.