HUMA Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 26, 2002

1145

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.))

Ms. Kathy Gray (Director of Employee Services, University of Saskatchewan)

1150

1155

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

Ms. Guay

Ms. Kathy Gray

Ms. Guay

Ms. Kathy Gray

1200

Ms. Guay

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea--Gore--Malton--Springdale, Lib.)

Ms. Kathy Gray

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Kathy Gray

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Kathy Gray

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Kathy Gray

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

Mrs. Skelton

1205

Ms. Kathy Gray

Mrs. Skelton

Ms. Kathy Gray

Mrs. Skelton

Ms. Kathy Gray

Mrs. Skelton

Ms. Kathy Gray

Mrs. Skelton

Ms. Kathy Gray

1210

Ms. Carol Skelton

Ms. Kathy Gray

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

Ms. Kathy Gray

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Ms. Kathy Gray

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Kathy Gray

1215

Mr. Dale Johnston

Ms. Kathy Gray

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

Mr. Dale Johnston

Ms. Kathy Gray

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa--Orléans, Lib.)

Ms. Kathy Gray

1220

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Kathy Gray

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Kathy Gray

Mr. Bellemare

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

Ms. Kathy Gray

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

1228

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

Mr. William Gleberzon (Executive Director, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus)

1230

1235

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

Mr. William Gleberzon

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

1240

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. William Gleberzon

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. William Gleberzon

Mr. Johnston

Mr. William Gleberzon

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. William Gleberzon

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. William Gleberzon

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. William Gleberzon

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. William Gleberzon

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. William Gleberzon

Mr. Dale Johnston

1245

Mr. William Gleberzon

Mr. Johnston

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.)

Mr. William Gleberzon

Mr. Joe McGuire

Mr. William Gleberzon

Mr. Joe McGuire

Mr. William Gleberzon

1250

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

Mrs. Skelton

Mr. Rolf Calhoun (Ottawa Representative, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus)

Mrs. Skelton

Mr. Rolf Calhoun

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. William Gleberzon

1255

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. William Gleberzon

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. William Gleberzon

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

Ms. Raymonde Folco

1300

Mr. William Gleberzon

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. William Gleberzon

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. William Gleberzon

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

NUMBER 051

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 26, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1145)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.)): Good day everyone. I would like to welcome our witness, who is here today in the context of the statutory revision to the Employment Equity Act. Welcome therefore to Ms. Kathy Gray of The University of Saskatchewan .

Ms. Gray, you will first be able to make your presentation. We will then have a question period open to both sides, the opposition and the party in power. I therefore invite you to start. You have a little more than five minutes because some witnesses could not be here this morning.

[English]

Ms. Kathy Gray (Director of Employee Services, University of Saskatchewan): That's what I understand. Thank you.

It's hard to believe that it's nearly 20 years since Judge Rosalie Abella completed her report on the royal commission, which resulted in the passage of the Employment Equity Act and the federal contractors program, or FCP.

We have indeed seen significant progress in promoting and achieving employment equity objectives in Canadian workplaces. Some would criticize by saying it's not enough, and others would say it's been too much.

I'm pleased to represent the University of Saskatchewan at this session of the parliamentary committee reviewing the Employment Equity Act.

I won't go through my entire presentation. You have it in front of you. The submission begins with a description of the university in terms of its significance measured by the number of employees, the number of students, its budgetary considerations, and its significant accomplishments. It then proceeds to describe the university's experience with employment equity and offers some observations on the FCP and the review process that I specifically want to address.

The university became a signatory with the FCP in 1987 and was found in compliance in 1992. Since then there has been one additional review, in 1997. The province's Human Rights Commission is the only commission--at least to my understanding--in Canada with the authority to approve affirmative action or employment equity programs under section 47 of the act. Consequently, when we made the decision to sign on with the FCP, we made a parallel application with the Human Rights Commission.

Reporting to the FCP is sporadic and appears unplanned. The expectations are vague and the process is generally disorganized. In all the years we've been part of the FCP, we've been requested to file a compliance review only twice. On the other hand, we're required to report annually to the Human Rights Commission. Reports from all the employers of the commission overseas are reviewed in a consistent manner and the reviews are consolidated into an annual report, which is reviewed at an annual monitoring session. All employers are invited.

The commission has a process in place to receive and act on feedback from employers. There does not appear to be anything in place at all with the FCP or the Employment Equity Act.

The commission evaluates submissions not only for numerical progress with respect to the representation of designated groups, but also in regard to qualitative successes. These include initiatives with respect to methods of recruitment and selection of employees from designated groups, as well as initiatives that promote the retention of new employees such as orientation and mentoring programs.

The reviews by the FCP, on the other hand, are totally focused on numbers with little regard to the other non-qualitative initiatives taken by employers. This is a concern echoed by other Canadian universities. Simply focusing on numbers does not achieve employment equity. The success of a program cannot be measured purely by numbers.

Employment equity is a broad spectrum of initiatives, many of which can be embarked on in spite of limited recruitment opportunities due to budget cutbacks or low employee turnover, and which can be in place when recruitment opportunities arise.

I address the representation of employees at the University of Saskatchewan and note that aboriginal employees are just over 1%. Disabled people, at 2.3%, are not well represented within our organization.

We initially considered this under-representation to be a result of poor selection decisions; however, we came to realize we do not know if we have a selection problem because our bigger problem is that of recruitment. The applicant pools for available positions simply do not have representation from aboriginal people or people with disabilities. Furthermore, it was identified that the university is seen as somewhat of an enigma. Potential employees, as well as employment agencies representing them, have no idea of the range of employment opportunities available. Strategies have been developed that are addressing these communication problems.

These are the kinds of initiatives not recognized by reviewers with the FCP. I cannot comment on the review process undertaken by reviewers with the Employment Equity Act, but expect the process is similar, with the focus being on numbers--on quantitative versus qualitative results. I recognize that it's easier to compare employers using only numerical results, but it only reveals one small part of the equation that is employment equity.

I consulted with other employers who fall under the FCP umbrella in preparing this submission. There is general agreement that it would be too onerous to expect employers to report annually. A review every three or four years would be sufficient, but it must be a planned review.

Á (1150)

Employers currently do not know when a review will come. This increases the perception that HRDC does not know how or does not have the commitment to administer and monitor employment equity programs.

It was felt that compliance review should be more professional. Many employers have had reviews that they described as bordering on the embarrassing. Reviewers had poor communication skills, limited people skills, and ignorance about what their role was.

The review officers did not take the time to understand the culture of universities in general, or the specific university being reviewed. The reviews should be balanced and take into account issues facing the employer, including financial constraints.

The review process needs to be clarified in a number of areas: expectations of both the employer and the reviewer; what's to be included in the review; and what's done with the results of the review. Additionally, what does it mean to be in compliance or not? How is this measured?

I've raised this latter question several times with representatives of the FCP, and nobody seems to know what would constitute non-compliance. This leads to the conclusion that the reviewers and the colleagues in FCP are as confused as the employers they review. Employers need to have some confidence in the review process, if they are to be supportive of it. Poorly trained review officers do not contribute to the confidence of employers.

The Employment Equity Act and the federal contractors program referred to the need of CEOs and senior managers to be more accountable. There's also room for improvement in the accountability of the federal government. The federal government could also be more supportive in helping employers meet their equity requirements. For example, Statistics Canada could be more prompt and generous with their release of data.

It was also suggested that sanctions for employers who fail to comply are not tough enough. If an employer fails to meet compliance requirements, it should be penalized in some way. However, there needs to be a definition of what failing to meet compliance requirements means. Assessing an employer simply on the basis of statistical representation is not sufficient.

There was consensus among the employers I contacted that they wanted to continue to develop and maintain their employment equity plans in a manner consistent with the culture in which they existed. What works for one university or any employer compared to another may be completely different, based on the job market and the organizational preparedness for equity initiatives, among other things. We would not want a unilateral directive on what employment equity should look like at our respective institutions. Let me elaborate on that.

At the University of Saskatchewan, opinions and commitments to equity vary widely. We have 28 colleges and administrative units within the university that are required to develop and implement internal employment equity plans, and report on these annually to senior administration. What is acceptable to one may very likely not be acceptable to another. In this submission, I go on to describe a specific preferential hiring process. I can respond to that later, if you wish. Flexibility in implementing employment equity programs is critical.

Are the Employment Equity Act and the federal contractors program effective in promoting employment equity in Canada? My opinion is that there's been very limited success. Compliance reviews are sporadic and unplanned. From the perspective of the University of Saskatchewan and other employers they consulted, the process and expectations are not defined and therefore are confusing. There is a lack of direction in what the review is intended to accomplish, and virtually no follow-up on completion of the review. There is no ongoing communication with representatives of the federal contractors program.

That's my submission. I would like to thank members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you, and I welcome your questions.

Á (1155)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Ms. Gray, thank you for your comments.

We will now move on to the question period. Each MP has about five minutes to ask questions, and the answers are included in that timeframe. Exceptionally, today we will start with Ms. Guay, who must leave at noon. Ms. Guay will therefore ask the first question. We will then move to the other side to come back to Ms. Skelton.

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Canadian Alliance for allowing me to ask my questions. I really must leave at noon for an event I could not avoid.

Thank you, Ms. Gray, for being here with us today. I read your brief quickly and I find it extraordinary that we have been able to highlight a job ad seeking a woman for the job, especially since it was an important position at the University. I see that it has created a furor but that you persisted and managed to fill the position.

So if I understand correctly we still have a long way to go in terms of public image and the way we will apply for jobs or ask that women fill important positions.

According to Statistics Canada, Ms. Gray, women have made progress in the public service; there are more and more women. But there are more and more women in less well-paying jobs, where the salary is $40,000 or less. The majority of jobs in the $40 - $100,000 range are occupied by men. This does not include visible minorities, disabled or Native people. So I would like to know what you think of that.

[English]

Ms. Kathy Gray: I assume what you're asking is in terms of the ghettoization of women. At the University of Saskatchewan, women make up 52% of our workforce, but only about 25% of our faculty are women. It's predominantly clerical workers, and again, there are those wage gaps.

So I think there is indeed a parallel process that has to go along with employment equity, which is to look at pay equity structures. I know the federal government has done that. At the University of Saskatchewan we are looking at that in terms of both faculty and non-faculty positions to determine those wage issues.

I think that is a similar experience for people with disabilities and aboriginal people. Again, as I mentioned earlier, we have such poor representation in those two areas it's very difficult to come to any conclusions, except to say I would expect we're no different from the rest of Canada in terms of our workplace.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Do you feel that the current Act is satisfactory? Many groups have come before us, including other universities and unions, because they are very close to the population and do a lot to promote employment equity, and they tell us that the Act does not have enough teeth, that it could take up to three years before there is a process for a complaint and, in the end, a reaction from the government. It seems that the implementation of our Act is very difficult. Have you felt the same thing at the university level?

Finally, how do you see, in your province, among others... You do not have an employment equity act in your province. We have one in Quebec and there is a process. I would say that it moves much more quickly for visible minorities, disabled people and women. We see that having a law in Quebec has changed the mentality more quickly.

We also spoke about marketing. In Quebec, we do some. We advertise, we promote it with people to tell them to come here, that there are jobs for them, for minorities, for women. I don't know if you do that at home.

[English]

Ms. Kathy Gray: I wasn't aware that Quebec had that provincial legislation. But the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission has under its act the ability to approve affirmative action or employment equity programs. That's more the jurisdiction we pay attention to at the University of Saskatchewan.

I think even at the provincial level the complaint process is a long one. To me, it's not a way to resolve these issues anyway. I think employers have to have the goodwill, the faith, and the commitment to act and move along.

I think the University of Saskatchewan is doing a lot of really good things in this area. One of our strongest priorities at this point is aboriginal employment, because that is the biggest sector of the province. That will be our entrance to the labour force. So we are focusing time and resources in terms of human resource managers to look at simply that specific area.

Â (1200)

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): We will now move on to Mr. Malhi and then to Ms. Skelton.

[English]

Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea--Gore--Malton--Springdale, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Firstly, the new immigrants are facing racial discrimination. Due to that, they are unable to get high-paying jobs, especially jobs within their profession.

Would you suggest to the federal government that they make any changes in the Employment Equity Act?

Ms. Kathy Gray: Yes, that is an issue that I know other universities are experiencing, more so in Ontario and B.C., because there's a much higher level of new immigrants in those populations.

I'm not sure. I don't know exactly what the federal government does in terms of job creation and other services to assist new immigrants to the country. But I don't know what changes there could be under the Employment Equity Act .

Under the federal contractors program, I think visible minorities are a designated group, and from my perspective, we work to be as inclusive as we can be. We work a lot with local and provincial agencies that might be familiar to you, like the Open Door Society and others, to try to find positions for and place new immigrants.

I don't have any further suggestions.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Also, do you see many complaints or concerns from older people about discrimination, in finding jobs?

Ms. Kathy Gray: No. Our experience is more the reverse. We tend to find that people in their twenties are the ones who have difficulty getting in. A lot of people we try to place don't have university experience, and that seems to be the barrier that works against them. How do they get university experience to get the job?

I understand you will have a submission later today from somebody about age discrimination, but that has not been our experience.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: The employment equity bill covers aboriginal people, minorities, the disabled, and women. Can you identify any other group that should be added to this?

Ms. Kathy Gray: We have had questions in the area of definition of visible minorities. We follow what's in the act, or the Human Rights Commission: non-white in colour or non-Caucasian in race. We've had a lot of questions in previous years about people, for example, from the former Soviet Union and other eastern European countries, who see themselves at a distinct disadvantage, in terms of employment, but are not considered designated groups under the act.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: What sorts of enforcement provisions do the federal contractors face if they do not comply with the employment equity obligations?

Ms. Kathy Gray: I mentioned in my submission that's a good question, because we've never been able to identify what it means to not be in compliance. If you're not in compliance, what are the sanctions? I don't know, and I think that's really unclear. This committee might want to consider how that can be clarified. What are the steps? What does it mean to be found in non-compliance, and what are the implications of doing so?

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): OK, Mr. Malhi?

Over to you, Ms. Skelton. Then Ms. Folco.

[English]

Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Some witnesses who appeared before the committee have suggested too much time and money are devoted to reporting, rather than to measures to help people from designated groups secure better jobs and marketable skills.

Do you think employers should have to report every year? How much does the university spend on this whole process? In what way could you see the money being spent in better ways?

Â (1205)

Ms. Kathy Gray: We've only been involved in a compliance review process with the federal contractors program twice since 1987. We report every year to the Human Rights Commission. I don't see it as an onerous process to report on an annual basis, but that's maybe because we've always done it that way.

My criticism, as I mentioned in the submission from the university, is the total focus on numbers and not on any of the other qualitative processes that support those numbers. Whenever there's a pot of money for the review process, the resources should be put into promoting the kinds of processes that would result in the employment of designated group members. They would help an organization identify where its barriers were to new immigrants, aboriginal people, or women, and work at overcoming those barriers, not just try to figure out how to put the round pegs in the proper holes.

Ms. Carol Skelton: When you applied for a mathematician and based your ad on gender, did a lot of women apply for that position, or just one? The other day, one of our presenters told us that in Quebec they just go by 1%, whether it's five in an organization or just one person in an organization.

Ms. Kathy Gray: You mean a quota.

Ms. Carol Skelton: She used the word “quota”.

Ms. Kathy Gray: We don't have quotas, university-wide. The provincial Human Rights Commission says that if we were representative of the population in the province of Saskatchewan, we would have 47% women, 9.6% people with disabilities, 12.3% aboriginal people, and somewhere around 6% or 7% visible minorities. So we say that's what we want to mirror. But we're not saying okay, we now have 52% women, so we're done.

What we do, because we're such a large organization, is break it down into those 28 colleges and administrative committees and ask them what works for them. That was the example I used. In the math department there were 22 faculty, two of whom were women, and one was retiring. They felt the applicant pool was there. They asked me if they had the authority to do that. I said yes, you do, but the search committee could just make that decision and not advertise it across Canada. They said no, we want to make the statement that this is what's really important to us, and we'll take whatever comes with that. So as a department, they said they had a quota.

Now, we could never centrally say to those departments and other colleges that this will be your quota, because there would be just incredible backlash on that. So we let individual colleges or departments decide for themselves what works.

Ms. Carol Skelton: Can I ask a real hornets nest of a question?

Ms. Kathy Gray: Sure.

Ms. Carol Skelton: How many of the colleges are in compliance with this--how many of the separate faculties, as you call them?

Ms. Kathy Gray: They all are. They all are required to have an employment equity committee and develop internal reports, and those are reviewed on an annual basis by a senior committee and central administration.

Â (1210)

Ms. Carol Skelton: You must be well on target, then--for example, with the 9.6% with disabilities and the 12.6% first nations people.

Ms. Kathy Gray: Well, I think it would be fair to say that probably all of our faculties and administrative units have as a priority wanting to...particularly aboriginal people--we're really focusing on them. It's the applicant pool. There's a gap between the people who are available for work and getting them to the university.

We've have, as I mentioned in the report, an image problem. We've worked with employment agencies and the clients they represent, and to our amazement, we found that they thought if you weren't a teacher or a secretary, there was no room for working at the university. We have 6,000 employees. So that's an image problem we're fighting with.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Ms. Folco, then Mr. Johnston and Mr. Bellemare.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is about the partnership between the unions and management on the issue of employment equity.

One of our witnesses last week suggested to us something that seems very interesting, namely that the union should be involved in the Employment Equity Act.

First, do you agree? Obviously, you could well not be. Do you have a union in your university, Ms. Gray?

[English]

Ms. Kathy Gray: We have five unions.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: On the one hand, do you see a role for the union? On the other hand, if so, at what stage in the process would you see union involvement? Could it be through an amendment to the Employment Equity Act that would identify the unions as one of the parties responsible for the implementation of the Act in the workplace, or do you feel that the union should intervene in collective bargaining discussions with management instead?

That's a lengthy question. The first question is: do you see the union having a role?

[English]

Ms. Kathy Gray: I think the union has to have a significant role to play. As I mentioned, we have five bargaining units at the University of Saskatchewan. Some of those collective agreements do address equity measures; some relate to a combination of issues, people with disabilities and others.

So yes, the unions have a role to play. As a bit of an aside, I would comment that it's often said that unionized workplaces and the rigidity of collective agreements are barriers to employment equity. I've always felt this to be somewhat of a red herring, because only one-third of workplaces in this country are unionized. If unions were indeed the barrier to employment equity, then two-thirds of our workplaces should be well balanced, and they're not.

Having said this, I think the legislation should suggest that unions play one role in a tripartite partnership with the employers and the employees, just as they do in terms of the whole issue of accommodation of employees for different reasons--disability, religious considerations, and so on. The jurisprudence clearly states that this is an equal responsibility of employer, employee, and union. I think it's certainly a very good thing for the act and the FCP to consider at least stating this in principle, if nothing else.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Mr. Johnston, followed by Mr. Bellemare.

[English]

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Ms. Gray, for your presentation.

We've heard from people from the department who said that employment equity is not about numbers; and yet you and others have come and said that it is about numbers, that it perhaps focuses too much on numbers--as you put it, on quantitative versus qualitative initiatives.

I'd like to give you an opportunity to elaborate on this a bit, and in so doing, I'd like to hear whether you think employment equity is obtaining the goals it set out to obtain as it is.

Ms. Kathy Gray: To answer your last question first, I don't believe we have, as a nation, achieved employment equity goals, and we may never. It's a very ongoing, developmental thing.

My criticism, based on my experience and the experience of the people and the other organizations I consulted with, is that the focus of the FCP has been solely on numbers. My point is that this is one way to measure success in employment equity, but we've come through--as I'm sure many employers have--a decade of limited hiring opportunities.

One can say that it's an easy out to just say that we have no hiring opportunities and therefore we have no way to achieve employment equity. Retaining the existing workforce is equal in importance to recruiting. If one just hires a member of a designated group and has no cultural shift to allow for the retention of that individual, then one's program has no benefit at all.

The numbers are a measurement, and we want to see progress towards them. But a whole host of other things have to be looked at as well.

Â (1215)

Mr. Dale Johnston: You mention that the review should be balanced and take into account other issues, including financial restraints.

Do you think the cost is significant for employers? Should there be some initiatives from the federal government, rather than just strictly penalties? Of the carrot-and-stick sort of thing, should there be more carrot and maybe less stick?

Ms. Kathy Gray: I would agree with that. I was going to say something about this in the submission and didn't. But yes, I think rather than saying we'll penalize you if you don't meet these expectations, just ask, how can we help you get there?

There are some federal government hiring initiatives in different programs, not all of which would be available to all employers. Some resources could be put into them. Work experience programs might be another example of where we could be putting some resources into helping employers meet these objectives.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Do I have a little more time?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Yes. You still have a minute.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Do you think, then, that the federal government has some role in training the workforce, since under employment equity, it's certainly not required to hire untrained or unqualified people? What role do you think the federal government has in helping those people get qualified so that you can employ them?

Ms. Kathy Gray: Yes, more training programs and assistance for employers to do some pre-employment training would be useful.

What I must admit is that I'm not clear, since a lot of what HRDC did federally has now shifted to the provinces, and a lot of those job-training, job-seeking kinds of services are now offered under another name, which fails to come to my mind.

I guess it would be to look at what kinds of services the federal government is offering in those areas and whether they're being offered in the most useful and effective way. Because there are a lot of people who use those services.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa--Orléans, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Gray, good day. We know that it is always difficult, in universities and colleges, to have academic qualifications recognized from one province to the next. It is often a problem caused by the professionals themselves. Take medecine for example. Now new Canadians tell us that they come here with a university degree, a specialization in medecine or in certain sciences and that they are not recognized.

How do you think we could solve this problem at the federal level since education in the provinces is a provincial responsibility and is not under federal jurisdiction?

[English]

Ms. Kathy Gray: The issue of credentials has been identified as a barrier for people in the professions, as well as in other areas. If they haven't already done so--and I'm not aware if they have--one of the things the federal government could consider doing is looking at those credentials and whether there's a way to measure their credibility.

It seems to me somewhat discriminatory that we automatically accept professional designations from Euro-centred countries, and out of hand dismiss credentials from non-Euro-centred countries. Where's the rationale for that?

Â (1220)

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: In your opinion, should other groups be designated under employment equity in addition to the four current ones?

[English]

Ms. Kathy Gray: It's been suggested that there are other groups that are discriminated against. I gave an example earlier of eastern Europeans, after the breakup of the former Soviet Union. There's also been a suggestion in terms of gays and lesbians.

I don't know, I think at this point my personal opinion is we should limit the act to the four designated groups that are currently identified. And when we feel we have made significant successes in dealing with the employment disadvantages faced by those groups, then perhaps extend the act. But why extend it now, and at what point do you stop it? How is the determination made? I think it would just make it more complex. I think we should just focus on where we are now.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I appreciate your answer.

My third question is as follows. In each of the provinces, people would like to know the proportion of these four designated groups. That seems to suggest that there are still, say, 50 per cent of women who have the necessary qualifications for a given job, that you have... Is it 17 or 37 per cent of Native people?

[English]

Ms. Kathy Gray: Twelve.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: OK, let's say about 30 per cent. If we suppose, for example, that Native people make up 30 per cent of the population, have there been studies showing that the population comprises 30 per cent Native people and that there are enough qualified people among Natives to designate about 30 per cent of them for jobs in Saskatchewan? Has there been any research to know if the qualified people are there in the four groups?

It's nice to say that we will have so many women, Natives, blind people, so many of this and that, but if the people in those groups are not qualified, and then you don't have them, people will accuse you of not dealing with the employment equity issue. So I come back to my original question: has there been research to know if the people with the required qualifications exist?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): A quick response.

Ms. Kathy Gray: On a provincial basis, there has been a lot of research done on the availability of an applicant pool. To a certain extent, for some jobs there is an applicant pool of aboriginal people. For other jobs, such as faculty positions, there is virtually no applicant pool. So it's a long-range issue and one we need to continue to deal with.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you, Ms. Gray. One again, speaking for alll my colleagues, I apologize for keeping you waiting. Our agendas are often juggled here at the House of Commons. Thank you for your comments and I wish you a good day.

We will suspend the meeting for a minute or two to give our next witnesses a chance to prepare for the next meeting. Thank you.

Â (1224)

Â (1228)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): If you wish we will now reconvene. I would like to welcome Mr. Gleberzon and Mr. Calhoun from the Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus, again in the context of the staututory revision of the Employment Equity Act.

Welcome, Mr. Gleberzon. I am sorry to have kept you waiting but we were delayed in our schedule. Please start your presentation. You have about five minutes, more or less, to make it and then we will have a question period.

[English]

Mr. William Gleberzon (Executive Director, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus): Thank you very much for inviting us here today.

I have a presentation, a copy of which has been given to the clerk. Unfortunately, it's only in English, so they'll have to translate it. Then they will distribute it to everyone else.

I'll begin with an executive summary of our recommendations. Firstly, the act should be amended to provide maximum employment equity protection for the target groups and all other Canadians by extending the scope of the act to encompass older workers. Therefore, the interpretation of “workers” in the act should be redefined to read “all persons in Canada of working age”, and specify a minimum age without a maximum, “who are willing and able to work”.

Secondly, the act should be amended to explicitly ban mandatory retirement in order to provide both employees and employers the choice for continued employment after the age of 65. In this way workers can negotiate directly or through their labour representatives to retire before, at, or after the age of 65. Willingness and capability to work, not age, should be the criterion for continuing to work after 65. Furthermore, legislation must be amended where necessary to continue to provide equity and other anti-discriminatory policies and practices for those older workers who choose to remain in the workforce after the age of 65.

Thirdly, the act should be amended to include all companies that provide services to the federal government regardless of the size of the employment complement. At the moment it's 100 employees or more.

Finally, the act should be amended to protect informal caregivers who provide care at home for loved ones by ensuring that they are “employed” under the same standards and training that are received by their paid counterparts, as well as receiving compensation and respite. Furthermore, they should be granted eligibility to receive employment insurance and to have the “stop out” years from gainful employment that they devote to providing elder care at home incorporated into CPP legislation as the equivalent benefit offered to women who “stop out” to provide child care.

Those are the four points we'd like to make this afternoon.

I'd like to briefly introduce you to CARP. We are the largest national association of mature Canadians in our country. We represent nearly 400,000 members in every province and territory who are 50 years old and older, both retired and still working. We are a non-profit organization, which receives no operating funds from any level of government.

Our mission is to express the concerns of mature Canadians regardless of age. Our mandate is to provide practical recommendations for the issues we raise, rather than just complain about issues.

In our view, the act as currently written is an ageist document. Ageism is defined as discrimination against persons on the basis of age. The term was coined to encompass discrimination that is focused against older persons, particularly those identified as seniors.

The purpose of the Employment Equity Act, as you know, is to protect the four target groups. However, the effectiveness of the act becomes seriously blunted when members of these target groups reach what the French call “a certain age”. With pragmatic efficiency, North Americans have unofficially identified this as 45 years of age when an older worker is defined. Workers in their 50s and 60s are particularly vulnerable to discrimination in hiring and dehiring practices and policies.

The problems of employment equity for older workers, whatever their characteristics, have been well defined. In appendix A of the presentation I have given to you are excerpts taken from the Ontario Human Rights Commission's report called Time for Action: Advancing Human Rights for Older Ontarians.

To provide maximum employment equity protection for the target groups and all other Canadians, to repeat, the act must be amended to include older workers. As I said, this can be achieved by extending the scope of the act to encompass older workers. Therefore, the interpretation of “workers” in the act should be redefined to read “all persons in Canada of working age”, with the minimum age specified without a maximum, “who are willing and able to work”.

Â (1230)

Secondly, on employment equity and mandatory retirement, the effectiveness of the act is constrained by the existence of the unwritten policy of mandatory retirement, which by indirection infers workers must retire at a certain age, usually 65.

Just as a footnote, when mandatory retirement was introduced about 130 or so years ago, the average age was probably around 60. Today, of course, the average age in Canada is roughly 82, and growing.

Although the traditional age of retirement is 65, for federal civil servants it's 70, and I believe for federally appointed judges it's 75. However, corporations frequently force many workers to retire before 65 through downsizing or persuading them with golden handshake retirement packages. Indeed, at present, the average age of retirement in Canada is about 62.

However, according to Statistics Canada--and these are 1996 statistics--currently about 6% of older workers are continuing to work after the age of 65, although I should point out that anyone who works after the age of 65 generally has no protection under any human rights legislation in any province. Many older workers are still either willing and capable of working beyond the traditional age of retirement, or due to their economic circumstances in many cases must continue to work after that age.

Economic circumstances force others to re-enter the labour force after the age of 65, for example women who become divorced or widowed. All of these people are as mentally and physically capable of continuing to work at age 66 as they were at age 64; and capability, not age, should be the defining criterion.

Mandatory retirement is particularly hard on women, visible minorities, aboriginal persons, and persons with disabilities, according to Time for Action, the document that's in appendix A. They say that women tend to work in sectors where employer pensions are not available and are more likely to work part-time and earn considerably less than men and are therefore doubly disadvantaged: they have no or very little access to CPP or RRSPs or private pensions, and no income, and are in real risk of being forced into poverty as a result of mandatory retirement.

The Time for Action document also states:

“Recent immigrants...may have a shorter period of employment in Canada upon which to build a pension. They, along with visible minorities and Aboriginal persons, also tend to have restricted access to the labour market and lower incomes. Similarly, persons with disabilities also tend to experience greater unemployment and lower wages during their working lives.”

The information I'm going to mention now just came to our attention, so it's not in the document. Quebec has outlawed mandatory retirement by legislation. In Manitoba it's outlawed by policy. And it's illegal unless justified by bona fide occupational requirements in Alberta, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and P.E.I.

Â (1235)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Excuse me, Mr. Gleberzon, do you think you could wrap up?

Mr. William Gleberzon: Yes, I will.

There are a number of other arguments for doing away with mandatory retirement, but you can read those. As I said, we believe employment equity should be extended to all companies that do business with the federal government, regardless of the employee complement, because in our current economic market the greatest growth is among companies with fewer than 20 employees.

Finally, informal caregivers are family members who are conscripted to provide care for acutely or chronically ill family members on a 24-7 basis until the care is no longer required. About 12% of those people have to give up gainful employment, and when they're done with it, they are really behind the eight ball because they can't contribute to CPP, they can't draw EI, and the benefits they are offered, like income tax, are meaningless if you're not working, etc.

I'll leave that for you.

To conclude, CARP recognizes that the act applies to only 10% of the labour force--federal government employees, employees of federally regulated corporations, and employees of federal suppliers with over 100 employees--however, the act does have a moral influence on and can serve as a model and precedent for employment equity practices and policies throughout the marketplace. Adopting the reforms for the act that CARP has suggested can have a profound and positive impact on the quality of working life for employees who are beyond its direct application.

One other point we would argue is that extending the age that people can work and giving them protection to do so will in no way limit or hinder employment policies of either companies or the government, or in any way inhibit younger people from getting jobs, because of the nature of our changing marketplace.

Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you. I am sorry to have to ask you to take less time, but we have a question period. We have 20 minutes for questions.

I will ask my colleagues to respect the five minutes for questions and answers as much as possible. We will start with Mr. Johnston, then Mr. McGuire.

Â (1240)

[English]

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. We have very few groups coming before us today with whom I can so well identify--white males over 50.

It seems to me the older workers fit into a couple of categories. There are people who have jobs and don't care to retire at age 65, and there are people who are over 45, as you've said, who haven't a job and are looking for one. Does your organization advocate for these people, helping older workers secure employment? And if so, how do you go about this?

Mr. William Gleberzon: No, we don't. We have in the past held job fairs where we did bring together employers and employees, but we haven't done that for a number of years.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Okay. So you would suggest or recommend that the Employment Equity Act be expanded to include older workers as well.

Mr. William Gleberzon: Yes.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Do you think there's any explanation for the reluctance of employers to hire an older worker, other than the older worker is older? Have you done any research on whether or not it would have anything to do with the qualifications or retraining of an older person or anything along this line?

Mr. William Gleberzon: Ordinarily it's because of myth and misunderstanding and misconception.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Is it simply that this is an older worker, and therefore we're going to have more problems?

Mr. William Gleberzon: We'll have more problems.

Sometimes they want to get rid of older workers who've been around and done a competent job--and there's no reason they can't continue to do a competent job--because of their pay scale or benefits. There are all kinds of myths that older workers are prone to being sicker and that kind of thing. We've done a lot of work in this area.

In fact, we had a symposium in Vancouver in the summer looking at the whole area of ages.We brought together experts in the field from the States, from France, from throughout Canada. One after another they demonstrated that the evidence shows that just because people are over 65 or 60 or 45, they're not decrepit; they learn as fast, etc., and they continue to have all the skills they had before those ages.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I agree they're not decrepit. Look at us; we're perfect examples.

Mr. William Gleberzon: Well....

Mr. Dale Johnston: That's a good point.

So you don't see this as a training or skills problem at all. You don't think the federal government would or should have any part in making sure these people do have the qualifications.

And the other thing I was going to ask you was--you may even want to comment on that, as well--you mentioned that mandatory retirement is legislated against in two provinces. Would you mind running over those figures again for me?

Mr. William Gleberzon: As we understand it, it's legislated against in Quebec.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Only there?

Mr. William Gleberson: It's policy, not legislation, in Manitoba. And in the other provinces I mentioned--

Mr. Dale Johnston: In other words, it's covered by regulation in Manitoba.

Mr. William Gleberzon: That's our understanding, yes. And as I said, in Alberta, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and P.E.I., it's illegal unless it is justified as a bona fide occupational requirement, perhaps where certain physical skills are needed, as for a fireman or a job like that.

Mr. Dale Johnston: And this is why I said there is a very big difference between mandatory retirement and not hiring someone over the age of 45. Do you agree?

Mr. William Gleberzon: Ah....

Mr. Dale Johnston: You're saying that in the majority of the provinces, just because someone is 65 years old, you can't say to him or her, “You have to retire”. So there's a big difference between mandatory retirement and not hiring someone because he or she is older.

Â (1245)

Mr. William Gleberzon: There's a difference, obviously, but it's the same theme, philosophy, attitude and value that somehow someone over 45 is incapable of doing the job, and even if they have to be retrained, they are incapable of being retrained because somehow their mind has fallen apart or something.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you.

Mr. Joe McGuire, then Ms. Skelton and Mr. Bellemare.

[English]

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to continue Mr. Johnston's theme. I think there is a difference between not hiring somebody who is over 45 and requiring somebody to retire. A recent trend, with people who are working and 65-plus, is that more and more companies are keeping these people if they want to stay. A lot of people who are 65 don't want to stay. I know a lot of people who are 50 who don't want to stay, if they can get a pension and retire to the golf course, or whatever.

But I'm told there is a trend--I wonder if it's true--that people who are of the mandatory retirement age, if you want to call it that, of 65 are choosing to stay. I'm told many companies are actually encouraging them to stay because they are capable of doing their jobs and have so much to offer companies than people who are, say, 20 years old.

Mr. William Gleberzon: Our understanding is that a worker who is 40 or 45 and has been let go will have a very hard time getting rehired. That trend still seems to be very prevalent.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Is that because of their work skills?

Mr. William Gleberzon: We think primarily it's because of these attitudes, plus there's a concern that they may have to be paid more or they'll get sick and therefore there are issues around benefits.

The nature of the workplace has changed so that many of the jobs that some people may have been capable of doing don't exist any more. They've been wiped out. Or the place of employment is gone but those people are still capable of being retrained.

As far as we know, the trend you were talking about of retaining people over 65 is occurring in some small way. We believe that over the next 30 years it's going to become an avalanche, because over the next 30 years we'll have about 3.5 million people who were born during World War II, plus 9.8 million people, the baby boomers, starting to retire. That's going to be one out of every four Canadians and that's going to leave a very wide and deep gap in the labour force. Therefore, the sooner we prepare for that, the better.

And you're right, not everyone wants to work until they're 65, and we're not suggesting they should or must. A lot of people do want to retire, but “freedom 55” seems to be a dream that many people are beginning to realize is an impossibility in today's economy.

So we think that while some employers are becoming enlightened, it still isn't really a widespread trend in the marketplace.

Mr. Joe McGuire: On the other end of the scale of people who are having difficulty getting work are young people looking for their first job. These are the two areas: the 45-plus, who are unemployed, or young people who are trained but still haven't got into the labour force. You say this document is an ageist document, but it would be no more ageist for you than it would be for them.

Mr. William Gleberzon: Sure.

Mr. Joe McGuire: So do we legislate for young people too?

Mr. William Gleberzon: We're saying “a minimum age”. We're saying that the interpretation of “working age” should be given a minimum age and there should be protection for everyone above that minimum, without a maximum.

The term “ageist/ageism” was identified for older people. It came into being about 20 years ago, and you're right, it can be applied to younger people too. We were asked earlier about the federal government and employment, and my understanding is that HRDC has programs of training to assist people to get jobs who are over the age of 45 because I assume they've recognized that this really is a major problem. And it's not just a major problem for those people; it's a major problem for society, because you get people nowadays at the peak of their life, especially if you're living to be in your eighties. I just heard that the largest growth in our population is among people 100, so--

Mr. Joe McGuire: Eugène is there.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Next year.

Mr. William Gleberzon: --we're looking at someone who's 45, 50, even 60 being not that old any more.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Thank you.

Â (1250)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Agreed. We will hear Ms. Skelton, then Mr. Bellemare, and the last question will be from Ms. Folco.

[English]

Ms. Carol Skelton: I'm really sorry that Werner Schmidt, our seniors critic for the Canadian Alliance, couldn't be here today. He's at a conference in British Columbia. But he attended the conference you sponsored last year in Victoria and was excited about it because there were some very positive things, he felt, that came out of it.

Mr. Calhoun, you're here to tell us something. Can you give us your views on this whole situation, too.

Mr. Rolf Calhoun (Ottawa Representative, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus): I would say that, strictly speaking, I'm here to provide moral support to my colleague, Mr. Gleberzon, who was very active and instrumental in preparing the document from which he's been reading. I must admit that I had no part in preparing the document; it was all done in good old Toronto. So I think it is probably better if Bill is continuing to comment, because his comments will hinge more correctly into the presentation.

Ms. Carol Skelton: I thought maybe you were a worker who had been discriminated against because of age. Do you know any workers who have been discriminated against because of their age?

Mr. Rolf Calhoun: I'm happy to say that at a point in my life when I was about age 45--your question is extemporaneous, and so is my answer--I found myself between jobs. To my absolute astonishment, there were real problems simply because I had reached the age of 45, even though I had a bundle of very marketable skills. Nevertheless, large corporations at that time were more interested in my particular age than my package of skills.

So I can say that discrimination is very real, not only in terms of my own personal experience. I worked with a group at that time that was employed by individuals, like myself, to attempt to hasten the process of finding the next job, and a lot of people were experiencing this same kind of difficulty.

Not only that, but I came to Ottawa to live some years ago, and at one point I made application to the federal government, which I've never actually worked for. I was, at the time, approximately age 55. I told the Public Service Commission my age and was told, in no uncertain terms, they weren't even going to keep my résumé on file because I was too old to work for the federal government.

That really floored me. Here was the federal government, supposedly the saviour of those people who might be discriminated against based on age, acting in the most discriminatory way possible, and blatantly telling me that my résumé was in the garbage because I was too old. That was my experience.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Obviously I share your point of view regarding people of a certain age, but I still have questions.

How do we respond to people who believe in the rejeuvenation of an industry? For example, in the public service we ask for rejeuvenation. In some industries, we see that people are getting older and that rejuvenation is necessary. How do you respond to those people in the context of employment equity?

[English]

Mr. William Gleberzon: First, all the studies that have been done demonstrate that keeping older workers does not really, in effect, prevent people from either being employed or moving up the scale.

Again I can simply refer you to the appendix here, where the Ontario Human Rights Commission looked at that particular issue. On promoting job opportunities for youth, it says:

“This argument is largely based on impression rather than evidence. In other words, people simply assume that mandatory retirement will facilitate the hiring and promotion of the younger workers. However, this assumption may not reflect reality. One author notes that no study can be cited to demonstrate that the termination of older workers through mandatory retirement directly caused the hiring of younger ones.”

Â (1255)

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: In the public service, for example, the deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers are for the most part people of a certain age. They are almost all men and I think they are all white. So if we keep them... Because intellectually, they have the abilities, the competence. So if they want to stay, what do we do about promoting women and the three other designated groups? There will always be a ceiling. In this case, it won't be of glass but of concrete. Among the young people, no one will be able to break through.

[English]

Mr. William Gleberzon: Again, the evidence suggests that a lot of people don't want to continue working. The assumption you're making is that all of them will want to work. I don't know if they're men or not; I have no idea, nor do I know anything about their background. But the assumption is that when all of them reach the age of 65 they will all want to continue, and evidence demonstrates currently that's not the case.

Often the people who continue working are those who, as you've pointed out, have the skills and the experience and the capability, but a lot of those are in the lower echelons of the employment field, are not making a lot of money, have not been able to save a lot of money for their retirement, do not have a lot of CPP saved up. So those people are the ones who really need the assistance and are capable.

Many people have come to us, women, for example, who worked for the Ontario government and for other provincial governments, and said, “Why was it that I was capable of doing the job when I was 64 and the day I turned 65, I'm not capable of doing it any more?”

I can only say that it seems to me that again there's this assumption that if employment equity goes, then no one will move out of the job. A lot of people do want to retire before they're 65.

In countries where they have abolished employment equity, like the United States, like Australia, and New Zealand, they've discovered that this has not been a problem, that people have moved on. It's a mixed bag, and people then can move forward.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Senators, for example, who are here in Parliament, are very competent and capable people who have their wits about them and produce a lot; should we keep them after age 75?

[English]

Mr. William Gleberzon: I don't know how to answer that.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: The same question could be asked about judges.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Mr. Bellemare, unfortunately that is all the time we have.

I simply want to underline that the deputy minister for Human Resources Development Canada is a woman. So, after your comments...

Ms. Raymonde Folco: (Editor's note: inaudible)... an important number of...

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: One out of 125?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): I don't have the number.

The last question is from Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Madam chair.

I will not come back to Mr. Bellemare's comment, but in my experience, Mr. Bellemare, there are a lot more than 1 in 125 who are women. It may not be an equal number, as it should be, but there are still a growing number.

On the demographic issue, you gave us a picture a while ago, Mr. Gleberzon, of older people who will become a more and more important part of Canadian society on the one hand. On the other hand, we know that the number of children born in Canada is getting smaller. There is therefore a disequilibrium towards older people and, from what I read here and there and what I hear from people, it will increase until 2015 more or less.

I asked myself the following question. Given the fact that there will be more and more older people, less and less young people who will be going after those jobs--I am playing devil's advocate here, I must admit--do you think it is really important to talk about ageism since there will come a time when there will not be enough youg people to fill the jobs and we will be forced to seek older people?

I see the picture a little differently in terms of medium-term demographics. Could you please comment on what I have said?

· (1300)

[English]

Mr. William Gleberzon: The demographic statistics tell us, as I said, that by the year 2030 we'll have one out of every four Canadians roughly over the age of 65, and, as you said, not reproducing ourselves sufficiently, we're going to have tremendous gaps in the nature of our economy.

Obviously, given the nature of the economy, we can't even predict what it will be like in terms of technology, etc. Nevertheless, there still will be tremendous gaps, even for people to push the buttons on machines. So we think the sooner the country prepares for this reality--and it is a reality, it's not just a group of people saying this is what we think is going to happen--the easier the transition will be.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: And the preparation, you see, is the training of older people so they can re-skill themselves on the one hand, and the training with companies to get them to hire those people. It goes both ways.

[English]

Mr. William Gleberzon: Well, I don't necessarily know if people have to be retrained. The job market, the employment market, is all over the map.

There are some extremely highly skilled people who because of company policy must leave. In some companies it's in their early sixties, in some companies 55. As in the 1990s, when the companies that downsized cut right to the bone, those companies too will discover that they have cut away not just the bone but the marrow. This is one of the reasons those downsizing companies decided to rehire a lot of the people they had let go.

So we have to start preparing now in order to ensure that the transition we know is coming will be as smooth as possible. If this means retraining people at certain levels, it should be done. It should become a part of human resource strategy that we hope this committee will consider very seriously.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I simply want a clarification, Madam Chair.

I think I did not express myself very clearly, Mr. Gleberzon. I was thinking that circumstances will be such that in any case we will need "older" people. So why bring in these programs when reality itself will force companies to keep, on the one hand, and to seek out, on the other hand, older people.

That is really my question.

[English]

Mr. William Gleberzon: Well, because I think we're making the assumption that businesses are that sharp, and that they are going to prepare their human resource plans for the next 30 years. In actuality they look at the next quarter; this is really the length of their vision. Some of them may look four, five years down the pike, but it's the government that really should be looking forward to these kinds of longer views.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): OK, Ms. Folco?

Unfortunately that is all the time we have. I would like to thank our witnesses today, Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Gleberzon, for their excellent comments and recommendations that will help us in our revisions to the Act.

I would also remind my colleagues that the next meeting will be next Thursday. Until further notice it will be from 11 to 1 p.m. We will keep you informed.

I wish everyone a good day.

The meeting is adjourned.