HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LE CODE DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE
CONTENTS
Monday 23 November 1992
Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 15
David Winninger, MPP
Gordon Mills, MPP
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East/-Est ND)
*Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West/-Ouest L)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre ND)
*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC) for Mr Harnick
*Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND) for Mr Wessenger
*Swarbrick, Anne (Scarborough West/-Ouest ND) for Mr Morrow
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffière: Freedman, Lisa
Staff / Personnel: Swift, Susan, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1551 in room 151.
HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LE CODE DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE
Consideration of Bill 15, An Act to amend the Human Rights Code / Loi modifiant le Code des droits de la personne.
The Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): I'd like to call this meeting of the standing committee on administration of justice to order. Today we'll be starting our public hearings on Bill 15, An Act to amend the Human Rights Code, presented by Mr Winninger.
Today we'll be having two witnesses. Mr Winninger will be leading off to present the bill, and then, with the committee's approval, we'll be having Mr Mills. I realize it's unorthodox to have another member presenting at the committee, but being as the notices went out late and we didn't have any other people today, there was nobody being bumped in that case.
Over 2,000 letters went out asking people if they wanted to do submissions, so the schedule you have in front of you will probably be filling in as people respond back to that.
At this time I'd like to welcome Mr Winninger, the MPP for London South. If you will, please proceed.
Mr David Winninger (London South): Thank you, Mr Chair. It's indeed a pleasure to be on the other side of the committee table today and to introduce for consideration by the members of this committee a matter which is of great concern to every resident of Ontario, to every person who wishes to decide the circumstances of his or her retirement and the manner and the time at which that retirement may take place.
This is a matter of concern to every person, as well, who is affected by employment and retirement policies through the taxes they pay, the personal support they may be called on to offer to persons who can no longer work or through the social costs which are incurred when persons with skills and knowledge are arbitrarily and as a matter of policy rather than practicality forced out of the labour market.
The proposal arises out of a private member's bill introduced by me on April 27 of this year. My bill amends the definition of age in the Human Rights Code. This amendment was referred to the justice committee after receiving second reading in the House and will prohibit discrimination based on age against persons aged 65 and over.
There are presently no bars to employers, in particular, practising such discrimination. They presently have a carte blanche, subject to certain controls under section 24 of the Human Rights Code, to discriminate against older persons for no other reason than that they have reached a certain age. For reasons that I am about to outline, this seems manifestly unfair.
My proposal would bring Ontario into line with a number of other jurisdictions which have amended their human rights codes to prohibit discrimination based solely on age against persons aged 18 and over. These jurisdictions include the provinces of Alberta, Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, as well as the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
I would like to point out some of the reasons that these different jurisdictions were persuaded to incorporate similar non-discriminatory clauses into their human rights codes.
First, I would like to mention the very significant benefits which a non-discriminatory requirement could bring to women, to recent immigrants and to all persons whose main long-term employment has been in casual or low-paying labour. Such persons often find, at attaining the age of 65, that they lack sufficient pensions to support their retirement. Where persons in this position are subject to dismissal from their place of employment, either at the whim of their employer or as a result of a mandatory retirement policy, they are essentially forced into a life of poverty.
That citizens should be denied the right to work and, as a consequence, be forced into poverty strikes me, at least, as not just unjustifiable in a free and democratic society but as truly outrageous. It seems to me a great transgression against the senior members of a society that after spending a lifetime in productive service to their communities, they should suddenly, at an arbitrarily chosen age of 65, be deprived of their fundamental rights. It seems to me unconscionable that at a time in life when an older person is sorely in need of resources, often as a consequence of having made social contributions which require considerable self-sacrifice, she or he should then be deprived overnight of the means of acquiring those resources.
My concerns, as some recent cases illustrate, are based on a realistic understanding of actual problems people face when they turn 65. Just to illustrate, I want to describe briefly the predicament of a woman, Ms Windus, who is presently being represented by the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund and whose case is being considered by the Human Rights Commission. I want to describe her predicament in particular because she has a work history which is typical of many women.
To paraphrase the words of the Ianni commission, the Ontario Task Force on Mandatory Retirement, she is typical because of her relatively low lifetime income and relatively small pension payment. Ms Windus is challenging clause 9(a) of the Human Rights Code, which permits her employer to force her to retire. Her situation is a vivid example, I would submit, of the realities facing many older women.
When she became pregnant with her first child, she was forced to retire as a result of her employer's policy governing pregnant women. After retiring, she stayed home for some years to care for her family and consequently did not earn any pension credits. Later in life, she worked in the family business with her husband, without a salary, and so again did not contribute to a public or private pension plan. At the age of 48, she re-entered the workforce as a relatively low-paid accounts payable clerk. At the age of 65, in perfectly good health and eager to work, she was forced to retire on an inadequate pension income.
The situation Ms Windus faces explains why, as Susannah Rowley noted in an article entitled Women, Pensions and Equity: "Poverty and old age is largely a woman's problem." The present threat to the funding of social services, including the day care which is so crucial to women's fuller participation in the workplace, accounts for Rowley's observation that "it is becoming more so every year."
Canadian law now recognizes that a policy or rule that is neutral on the surface may in fact be discriminatory because of its adverse effect on particular groups. I think nothing is clearer than that the present definition of age in the Human Rights Code has an adverse, discriminatory effect on women. However, mandatory retirement by no means affects only women. I think it is also important to mention the plight of recent immigrants when considering the discriminatory effects of mandatory retirement.
Immigrants to Canada are not entitled to receive old age security until they have worked in the country for a minimum of 10 years. I ask you to consider the case of a refugee who has fled to Canada as a result of persecution in his or her own country, perhaps as a consequence of his or her own union activities or of the exercise of the right to free speech.
1600
Suppose this person arrives in Canada at the age of 58 and it then takes her two years to establish the legitimacy of her refugee status and to obtain a work permit. Suppose she then obtains a union job from which she is forced to retire at the age of 65. Her situation under these circumstances would be intolerable. She would, at the very least, be forced to live on social assistance and to endure all the humiliating restrictions that that entails.
Mandatory retirement by no means affects persons in solely economic terms. The devastating psychological effects of mandatory retirement on persons who are still in good health and eager to use their skills and continue to make a contribution to society must be considered as well. These effects have been described as follows:
"The loss of roles excludes the aged from significant social participation and devalues them. It deprives them of vital functions that underlie their sense of worth, their self-conceptions and self-esteem. In a word, they are depreciated and become marginal, alienated from the larger society. They are then to be tolerated, patronized, ignored, rejected or viewed as a liability. They are first excluded from the mainstream...and because of this non-participation are then penalized and denied the rewards that earlier came to them routinely.
"Formerly useful skills are consigned to the scrapheap overnight...condemning the elderly to `an idleness that hastens their decline.'"
Far from embarking upon a new leisure life in their golden years, "people who are forced to retire, except for a fortunate few, are thrust into an agonizing path of doubt, insecurity, emptiness and futility."
In keeping in mind the social and psychological effects of mandatory retirement on aging persons, we must not forget either that the health and wellbeing of Canadians is constantly improving. Our lifespan is increasing and many people are maintaining their vigour to a later age. Whereas 65 might have once been a reasonable time for normal retirement, it does not seem so reasonable any more and promises to become increasingly less so. There is an increasing number of people whose general health, mental acuity and vigour make it an unreasonable and abnormal retirement time.
Some concerns have been raised about the economic and social pressures of effectively eliminating the right of employers to impose mandatory retirement. I think it is important that we address these concerns now. They certainly raise some important issues that we need to deal with. They also force us to understand some of the subtleties of the problems raised by mandatory retirement.
Perhaps the major fears concern the effect prohibiting mandatory retirement will have on the labour market -- on the cost of labour, on the creation of new jobs and on the induction of new workers into the labour market in such a way as to promote employment equity goals.
It is feared that the prohibition of mandatory retirement will increase the cost of labour to employers and these costs will be passed down in the way of lower wages to other employees. Older workers, it is argued, get paid relatively more in relation to their productivity than younger workers. It is always therefore a saving to the employer to terminate an older, highly paid worker and to hire a younger worker who will do the same job for half the price.
I want to say two things in response to this concern. The first is that there is to date no evidence in all the other jurisdictions that have abolished mandatory retirement that significant numbers of highly paid workers or even that significant numbers of workers who are entitled to pensions want to stay on after the normal retirement time. Studies have been done in New Brunswick, for example, and also in the United States that show that only 1% to 2% of workers stay on past the normal retirement time and the vast majority of those who do stay on, the 1% or 2%, retire by the time they reach the age of 67.
In addition, there is, according to reports of the Ianni commission, the Ontario Task Force on Mandatory Retirement, considerable flexibility in allowing retirees to work past the usual retirement age. In fact only about 11% of employees subject to mandatory retirement agreements have no possibility of being rehired.
The public may well ask then why we should bother to eliminate mandatory retirement if in fact it won't make much difference to most workers and if in fact workers who wish to do so often continue to work past the mandatory retirement age in any case.
My answer is this: The amendment I am proposing is not aimed so much at establishing the rule as it is at accommodating the exception. What I'm proposing is aimed at protecting human rights, at protecting those persons whose retirement has not been provided for or those persons who would suffer the psychological effects of employment deprivation and consequent marginalization.
This is a human rights issue which we should address precisely because addressing it promises to have very few economic and social costs. The evidence shows that in this case the protection of human rights and the elimination of what is clearly a form of adverse effect sexual discrimination can only have benefits.
Persons who need to continue working will be able to do so without fear of being subjected to arbitrary or discriminatory dismissal. They will therefore not be forced to fall back on the public or private purse. They will therefore continue to be able to contribute to the public good.
The concern that the elimination of mandatory retirement will constitute an obstacle to younger workers entering the job market and that it will constitute a setback to employment equity goals can be responded to in the same way.
There is considerable evidence at this point that the elimination of mandatory retirement will not affect normal retirement patterns in a significant way. Therefore the social and the economic costs of protecting the rights of individuals whose circumstances may not fit the usual pattern will be minimal or non-existent. There is to my mind no justification for failing to protect those very important rights. The elimination of mandatory retirement is not, however, merely a human rights issue. It is not just an anti-poverty issue either. It will have social consequences of another dimension.
Although it may be difficult for some to envisage in this time of unemployment and economic restraint, a serious labour shortage is still being predicted in the next decade. Although the aging population will be comprised of persons whose energy, skills and knowledge could be of considerable social use, it will also include persons who will, for reasons of health or of inclination, voluntarily leave the workforce. These people will, however, continue to rely on social services and indeed will probably make more intensive use of services like health services.
1610
It is predicted that it is this demographic shift in the workforce that will result in a shortage of workers in many areas. Assuming this prediction is correct, we would do well to prepare for it by ensuring ahead of time that unreasonable bureaucratic obstacles to keeping skilled and knowledgeable workers in the workforce are removed. We should not wait until the actual shortages occur to start to introduce legislation. If we do that, our remedy will come too late, for legislation takes time and in the meantime individuals suffer and society suffers. Rather we should anticipate the future and act, I would submit, in a timely fashion.
Another concern raised by the labour movement is that the elimination of mandatory retirement will require employers to find an unpleasant solution to what we often call the "dead wood" problem. Presently, it is argued, unproductive employees are often tolerated longer than they might otherwise be because the employer has the assurance that there is a clear limit to this degree of toleration. With the elimination of mandatory retirement, it is argued, employers will have no choice but to force unproductive and overpaid employees to leave, and this will involve increased monitoring and escalated review procedures.
These procedures, it is thought, will undermine the dignity of older workers. Undermining the dignity of older workers is certainly a serious concern, but infringing on the fundamental rights of older workers is a serious concern as well and, in my view, it is just as serious an affront to human dignity to do that.
I therefore find myself in strong agreement with the Supreme Court, which has noted quite rightly that the desire to preserve the dignity of others is not a sufficient reason to infringe on a fundamental right. My personal view is that to suppose otherwise amounts to naked paternalism, which, I have said before and will repeat here, is not justified in a free and democratic society.
In this context, I wish to mention a similar and, in my view, less serious concern. It is that the actuarial costs, the administrative costs, the costs of bookkeeping essentially, will be sufficiently high as to constitute an obstacle to this kind of change in this time of economic restraint.
The argument basically is this: A fundamental human right cannot be protected if the bookkeeping costs are too high. On this point, I can only appeal to what the Supreme Court said about dignity and I can only iterate my certainty that it would say the same thing about bookkeeping costs. It would say, I'm sure, that the normal costs of bookkeeping would not be a sufficient reason to infringe on a fundamental human right.
The cost of bookkeeping is not then, in my view, an especially good reason for denying productive and capable citizens their fundamental human rights. However, there is a concern which I take more seriously and which touches on something to which I am deeply committed. Although the appropriate response to this concern is very similar to the responses I have already given, I want to deal with it separately and to be very clear on what is really at issue with this concern.
The concern is that the elimination of mandatory retirement will have a tendency to undermine the federal government's commitment to universal social programs. The fear then is that the move on the part of the provinces to eliminate mandatory retirement actually plays into the federal government's hand with respect to the undermining of universal social programs.
When the federal government sees that older persons are not forced to retire at a certain age, it will have a stronger argument for not ensuring social security to people of that age, whether 65 or otherwise. The argument will be that if older people can work there is less reason to provide for their security. The effect of this will be to deny people who would like to retire and who, after years of being productive members of society, should be entitled to retire with the economic wherewithal to do so.
As I say, this is a very serious concern, and it is a very serious concern of mine. I am as committed as anyone could be to maintaining the universality of our social programs. I feel very strongly that equal entitlement to health and to economic security for all persons must be maintained, regardless of the contingencies of their personal fortunes, and precisely because their personal fortunes are full of contingencies. But I feel equally strongly that the infringement on fundamental human rights must not be a condition precedent to maintaining this commitment. I think that our commitment to universal social programs must be and can be maintained on independent grounds and on grounds that ensure, rather than infringe on, fundamental human rights.
Finally, there is one other concern I wish to address, and this is the opposition to eliminating mandatory retirement that is presented by some universities and that is opposed, I should add, by some faculty associations.
The universities argue -- the universities of which I speak -- that if mandatory retirement is eliminated, they will become moribund. They complain that they end up with a lot of dead wood which, because of the protection offered by tenure, they can only be rid of through mandatory retirement. Without mandatory retirement, they maintain, this dead wood will stay on, earning a salary that is out of proportion to its productivity and blocking the entry of younger, fresher, more enthusiastic faculty people. Since these faculty members would continue to enjoy tenure, it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to retire or dislodge these older faculty members.
In response to this concern, I want to say that I think the quite legitimate concerns of the universities can be worked out in a reasonable and practical way that will not infringe on fundamental rights. For one thing, universities have already been very successful in offering early retirement.
In conclusion, I would have to argue that this legislation will produce a win-win situation. Far from incurring costs, it will in most cases reduce the social and economic costs that are in fact incurred when skilled and knowledgeable workers are forced out of the workplace without adequate funds for their support. Not only do such persons become dependent on society in general for their support, but society suffers from the loss of the contribution they would otherwise make and also from whatever decline in mental and physical health they might suffer as a consequence of the unhappiness caused by their situations.
Given that the benefits of this legislation will far outweigh its costs, and given what is at issue, a fundamental human right, the argument for enacting this proposed legislation is very strong indeed.
1620
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Winninger. Questions or comments?
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I just wondered if you have any figures about average age of retirement and how that is reflected in the different occupations. For example, I have an impression that people in blue collar jobs tend to retire much younger than one would expect, for various reasons.
Mr Winninger: I don't have those specific figures, other than my indication earlier that upwards of 98% or 99% are retired by age 65 in those jurisdictions that have removed mandatory retirement. I'm reasonably confident that those kinds of figures could be broken down and could be obtained for this committee.
Ms Carter: And that would give a clearer picture as to why we would not expect that many people to stay on after 65. It shows a pattern of people actually retiring earlier rather than later.
Mr Winninger: Your suspicion may be true. It may be that in the so-called blue collar jobs where physical endurance is required, those workers may indeed want to retire earlier or may be obliged to retire earlier because they can't meet the physical requirements.
I should note parenthetically that there have been cases before the courts involving police and firefighters where reasonable age restrictions tied directly to the ability to perform the functions of that job have been upheld -- ages as early as 60. The Human Rights Code has a section, section 24, which allows reasonable restrictions on retirement.
Ms Carter: So that firefighters, for example, already have to retire at a point when they can't meet the requirements of the job; that's what you're saying.
Mr Winninger: That's correct.
Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): David, I think you've presented a really good brief and certainly a good argument. I do have a few questions I'd like to ask you if you have some answers.
Mr Winninger: Certainly.
Ms Swarbrick: The first, and forgive me if I've missed this but I didn't think I noticed it, is have you looked at what the impact would be on pension plans if there was no normal retirement age for the pension plans to project and to work on the basis of?
Mr Winninger: We have done some preliminary research in that area. You may know, for example, that the Canada pension plan already has built into it the option of deferring Canada pension credits past the age of 65 so that there would be a phasing in of pension benefits for those people who wish to continue working, and by age 70, I believe, the pension becomes payable 100%. But before that time, the pension credits are phased in. That's to accommodate, I think, those provinces that have already abolished mandatory retirement.
We could also, I suppose, look to the US experience where mandatory retirement has been abolished for a few years and see how their pension plans have been adjusted to accommodate the longer term for those workers who elect to stay on after age 65.
Ms Swarbrick: When you talk about comparing to the other provinces and the US, I'm wondering whether you know what the situation is in Sweden and in Europe. I guess one of the reasons my mind turns over there as well is it seems to me that it's possible that by extending the human right of continuing to work in these situations past 65, we are effectively extending the right to work until you drop exclusively to women and immigrants.
I guess that concerns me a bit, whether the real issue is extending the right to work till you drop to women and immigrants or finding how we build in greater economic and income security to those people in view of the kinds of situations you very appropriately pointed out to us. I wonder if you could comment on the issue I've raised and if you know how Sweden and other European countries deal with it.
Mr Winninger: Quite frankly, it's been a while since I looked at how other countries deal with it, but it's quite clear that women and new Canadians tend to have shorter work histories before they attain the age of 65. So I tended to focus on them as perhaps the most clear-cut examples of how you can suffer economic deprivation.
There are people, though, who may, for whatever reason, not wish to retire at age 65. That may be the key to their longevity or their feeling of fulfilment in life. Regardless of whether they have that economic safety net there, they are in some cases deprived of the right to continue making their contribution to society and lose their sense of self-worth in many cases. It may in fact hasten a deterioration of their physical and psychological health.
I'm sure that we can access information on European jurisdictions as well.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Swarbrick. Ms Akande.
Ms Swarbrick: Sorry. Actually I've a couple more as well, but I'll wait.
Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): Go ahead.
Ms Swarbrick: One of the other areas that concerns me a bit is the issue of the competency arguments that that will end up invoking in many more situations, which you've referred to, if there isn't the normal retirement age for people to leave and as we in our older age become slower and what have you, of management invoking the question of competency of people at an age when wouldn't it be nice for them to be able to step down gracefully rather than having to go through such horrendous allegations against them at a point when they should be able to celebrate.
I'm wondering whether those competency arguments, given that they would be based on subjective judgements, would also invite issues of favouritism and might also in fact invite issues of sexism and racism in terms of who gets looked at to have his competency questioned at 65. Have you thought about that aspect?
Mr Winninger: I certainly take your point. I would contend that whether you're dealing with physical limitations or intellectual or mental limitations, at a certain age there may have to be a periodic review of competency to carry out the essential components of your job description. That's true of a security guard and I think that's also true of a university professor. There may come a point at which there would have to be periodic reviews, because otherwise you would be unable to ensure that the jobs are effectively carried out.
I guess in the case of a university professor the students and the academic community would suffer as a result if a university professor became non compos mentis or was unable to continue making an effective contribution. The same would be true of physical labourers, line workers and so on if they were a safety hazard, if they were unable to produce a reasonable quota, whatever the job descriptions are. It would be important that there be a form of review, and that in fact could be contractual or the subject of a collective agreement.
It's this arbitrariness of age 65 and terminating employment at that point that my Human Rights Code amendment is designed to address.
1630
Ms Swarbrick: You're touching now on the issue of the universities, which is one I wanted to get back to in terms of something you've touched on in your presentation. You've referred here to a university's financial concerns around being able to have senior, older professors retire after the age of 65, given of course that senior professors are the ones who are pulling in the greater income. As they leave, they would free up more of the payroll income that universities can be planning to make some economic savings on, especially in a time like the one we're going through now.
You answer that by suggesting they could in fact offer financial settlements that would be lucrative enough for the professors to want to retire, given then that those positions would still need to be replaced by the younger professors. I'm wondering how that really does solve the economic problems the university is pointing to; whether in fact we are ending up talking about costing more money instead of less.
Mr Winninger: There are cases now, as you've alluded to, where tenured faculty reach an agreement with the college or university to teach part-time, perhaps to supervise graduate students part-time or whatever, at a reduced salary. That option would still be available if we were to eliminate the age 65 ground for termination. Whether it would wind up costing more or not would, I suppose, be based on the degree of interest in remaining as a full professor or an associate professor with the commensurate salary.
There may be some added to universities but, given the statistical information on the number of those who elect to stay on past age 65 where mandatory retirement has been eliminated, that may be negligible. I understand the Council of Ontario Universities is presenting tomorrow and we may hear more from them in regard to their economic concerns.
I think you would agree, we are dealing here with human rights and the question is: What price do we put on human rights when we're dealing with the economics? I suggest that the extent of interest in working past 65 is rather limited and not significant in economic terms.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms Akande, a brief question?
Ms Akande: Yes, I was concerned about a couple of things you said, or it makes me want to ask some questions.
You didn't refer to the fact that there is an opportunity even now for people to extend the time of their employment. That being the case, why would you feel it would be important, in view of some of the other things I'm going to point out, to have this in legislation?
Mr Winninger: Because there are many who do not have the privilege of extending their employment and they are effectively discriminated against and are not accorded protection under the Human Rights Code.
While members of the Legislature, for example, can remain in office as long as the electorate allows them to do so, others are not so fortunate and may, just because they reach the magic age of 65, be forced right out of their jobs when they continue to be healthy, productive and well regarded in their particular workforce.
Ms Akande: In terms of the youth unemployment we're facing today, I know you make the statement that we will in fact in the future be facing a labour shortage. At the same time, it is not just a matter of a job for a job, but it's a matter of the opportunity for those youths to move through the ranks and to assume positions of responsibility and administrative heads.
Those are positions that, if we can generalize, would more likely to be held currently and maintained if retirement was to be extended by an older group, probably men. Do you not think this would dislodge or make it impossible, even more difficult, for youth to achieve those levels and therefore to support the system?
Mr Winninger: It's an interesting question. I keep returning to the point that only a very minuscule percentage of people elect to stay on. Whether those people will be men or women in senior management positions remains to be seen. Conversely, one might argue that those who are comfortable and have achieved a level of savings and security that others may lack would be more likely to welcome a retirement where they can live a life with greater leisure.
It's difficult to predict, but I would argue that the small numbers would not have an appreciable effect on entry to the labour force and mobility within the labour force, and I'm supported to a considerable degree by a paper I circulated at the time of second reading by Professor Krashinsky at the University of Toronto, who did a study of the economics and determined that there was no economic disincentive to eliminating mandatory retirement and that suitable arrangements can be made contractually where necessary.
Ms Akande: Let me ask you this. Have you considered in that collection of information the fact that in places where early retirement has been made more attractive -- not just possible, but more attractive financially in terms of, let's say, education, when they were having a great many problems in terms of the numbers of teachers who were out there -- the accessibility of that opportunity made a great increase in the numbers of those who in fact did retire? Do you not think that the numbers of those who would elect to remain after 65 would increase considerably once the legislation was passed? You're using as reference the small percentage who elect to remain now, but if this legislation were to pass, I would imagine that there would be a significant increase in that percentage of those who elect to remain after 65.
Mr Winninger: The date I provided you with is from jurisdictions that have already abolished mandatory retirement. I was looking to those jurisdictions for their experience in terms of what numbers of people chose to stay on or not. These days, with mandatory retirement, it's a little more difficult to get a handle on who would stay on if there were protection for people over 65. We just look to the other jurisdictions for precedent on that.
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): A brief statement and then I wanted to build on Ms Akande's question because I thought it was a rather good one.
First of all, I want to commend Mr Winninger for being able to succeed in getting his private member's bill from the House to a committee. That's a rare episode in this environment and from this government, and it's a controversial issue and I'd rather just simply leave it at that. You're indeed fortunate that your House leader has deemed you one of the fortunate ones, that you're allowed to go ahead with yours. I wish we had a situation where there was a little more equity in that. Should your career in this building also be at a time when you're in opposition, you'll come to appreciate the importance of making sure that there's more balance. But what is before us is your bill and I wish to commend you for it and I have a few questions.
Building on Ms Akande's question, have you received any feedback from the teachers' federation in this regard or trustees' associations with any impact that this might have? I have my own theories about what may happen as a result, but have you had any feedback in support or commentary at all?
Mr Winninger: I don't personally, but I know that our clerk has sent out invitations to appear to 2,000 possible presenters, and I imagine that if they do have concerns they would let us know.
1640
Mr Jackson: I might encourage you to talk to your own local in this regard. In my 16 years in public education, almost all of it in an elected capacity, retirement is an economic issue. Certainly Ontario teachers' federations have negotiated very well in order to prepare a package, and the retirement gratuity in and of itself enables the teacher, in his or her first year of retirement, to earn more than in the last year of employment. That's possible. There are some fairly attractive attributes and I don't think global experiences would overlay well with the experience here in Ontario. I think we'd have to literally buy out teachers if we wanted them to retire earlier. That seems to be the trend, and there's nothing terribly wrong about that.
I do want to move into the other area, though, about building on your thesis that more older workers would be now in the total overall work pool. That would be a potential, and you use as your major reason the fact that there would be extensive discrimination.
Are you of the view that discrimination in terms of employment opportunities would continue, or that this in fact would have a positive impact on older workers who are laid off, who've lost employment -- this is separate from being told to retire -- that in fact we might not create an even larger cohort of citizens who believe that they're being discriminated against because they're an older worker, if I can use that phrase, which I'm not comfortable with, frankly, but you know what I mean by that?
Mr Winninger: If I understand you correctly, are you suggesting that there may be older unemployed workers who have reached the age of 65 who may be seeking new employment and would, as the legislation stands right now, be effectively barred from employment unless the employer voluntarily decided to employ them, notwithstanding their age, but they wouldn't have any protection under the Human Rights Code if they were discriminated against on the basis of age in hiring policy?
Mr Jackson: That's correct. Is that your belief and understanding as well? You raised the issue of discrimination, and now we're now putting more of these personnes âgées, which I prefer to "older persons," into our labour pool eligible for employment in the eyes of the law. Will this not increase the amount of discrimination, because there are increasing numbers of people out there looking for work, presenting themselves to employers for employment?
Mr Winninger: This is difficult to predict. There obviously will be some individuals over 65 who will be seeking new jobs. Just how substantial a number that is I can't really say, but as a basic human rights issue, can we honestly say that if people don't have adequate pension plans or security they should be arbitrarily and categorically barred from seeking re-entry into the workforce merely because they've reached the age of 65?
Mr Jackson: The second issue which would have an impact, or, to reverse it, the second initiative of your government that may change as a result of your bill, might be its impact on employment equity. I'd like to discuss that, if I might, just for a few moments, because as I understand the current employment equity legislation of your government, it will suspend certain rights in the Human Rights Code in order to apply greater rights to those identified target groups.
My question at the outset is: Given that, by your own admission, seniors are discriminated against, and given that older worker programs are not working well, that the volunteer approach to employment for these people is not working, do you not feel, or would you support, that employment equity legislation be modified to include persons of a certain age so that they in fact are not discriminated against in the sense that you have presented it to this committee?
Mr Winninger: Quite frankly, I think that goes beyond the scope of my bill.
Mr Jackson: In what way?
Mr Winninger: As you well know, Mr Jackson, there are four groups that are targeted for employment equity objectives. Two of those groups, incidentally, may be, by example, older workers who are being discriminated against, women and visible minorities, many of whom may be new Canadians who haven't built up the measure of comfort and security that others may take for granted in their old age. These groups actually will dovetail quite nicely with the proposal I put forward under the Human Rights Code.
If I understand you, though, what you may be saying is, should we extend the four groups, and I didn't mention aboriginal and disabled. And again, disabled people may be over the age of 65. They, too, may benefit from employment equity. But those who wouldn't be covered presently under the employment equity legislation who may be over 65, you're saying, shouldn't we add age as a ground for promoting employment equity?
Mr Jackson: My concern here, to put the fine point on it, is that you've identified discrimination as a concern, the genesis of why you're bringing forward this bill. You're about to support another bill which in fact will put elderly persons in this province -- their civil rights, their rights under the Human Rights Code are going to be seized and set aside, which I guess is the proper legal phrase, by your government's bill. I'm trying to determine the degree of your commitment to facing that form of discrimination against seniors, if it is as simple as putting something into the Human Rights Code in the next several months, only to have it removed again and have more people included in that, having their rights removed under the protection of the Human Rights Code.
I'm trying to measure your degree of understanding and commitment to the concept of discrimination on the basis of age. I believe age discrimination, just as I'm sure the government believes with sexual orientation, should be added to this bill, meaning the bill on employment equity, in order that those identified target groups are dealt with in a meaningful fashion.
That's why I'm really trying to get at the nub of it, because we'd be foolish to mislead people into believing that you can monitor jurisdictions elsewhere when they don't have the kind of employment equity legislation your government's about to perform and that the unique wrinkle that will be Ontario is that in Ontario we will be taking older people and removing their rights and protections under the Human Rights Code. Before I'm prepared to do that, whether it's 80, 90 or 100, I want to get a clearer sense of the nature of your commitment to these people on the issue of discrimination, because these are considerations we have to look at.
Mr Winninger: I think I understand your thinking much more clearly now. I understand it clearly enough to know that I disagree with your premise. Employment equity doesn't take anyone's rights away. It speaks to hiring and promotion procedures and in some cases training procedures. It simply says, as I understand it, that if you have two people with equal abilities to perform the job, contrary to the past where disabled, aboriginals, women and visible minorities were discriminated against, we're going to make it our effective target, our objective, to hire these people so that ultimately, as you know, Mr Jackson, the workforce will accurately affect the makeup and composition of society.
I don't see that as, in any way, taking away anyone's rights under 65 or over 65, so I'm not convinced that that's a limitation that should be addressed under employment equity.
Mr Jackson: Mr Winninger, not to be argumentative, you are a lawyer. You understand the law, and I suspect --
Mr Winninger: I've already got one strike against me now. Go ahead.
Mr Jackson: I didn't call you a politician. That would be very unfair.
The Chair: One more brief question, Mr Jackson.
1650
Mr Jackson: Thank you.
What I'm suggesting to you is simply that having read your government's employment equity legislation, can you not clearly see that the rights under the Human Rights Code for elderly people, for older white males, for older males in this province, for older Caucasians, even for older women who are not in the other target groups -- that in fact your legislation clearly states that their protection under the Human Rights Code has to be set aside, that they lose those rights?
All I'm trying to put in perspective here is that on the one hand we're giving additional rights to our citizens. We're trying to convince them that we're doing something in a positive way. This isn't so you can stay in your job, only that you can stay in your job till you're older than 65.
It also means that when you're 72 and you present yourself on the doorstep of an employer, the law says you have the right to go in there and apply and you cannot be discriminated against because you're 72 years of age. That's exactly what this says. You're a lawyer and you know it.
But we're going to bring forward legislation which says, "By the way, these rights are going to be removed." You will not put force and effect in your commitment to these issues of discrimination by also having a companion action of yours to amend your own government's legislation to ensure that elder workers from 65 to 80 are not discriminated against in this province and are therefore deserving of being the government's targeted group.
By your own admission, sir, they're being discriminated against. I simply give you an opportunity to show the consistency of your commitment to these people.
Mr Winninger: Just in brief response, any reasonable, sensible and knowledgeable person, lawyer or layperson, would immediately see, upon reviewing the employment equity proposal, that it does not refer to age. In no way does it refer to age. It is not age legislation. Indirectly, I suppose it refers to colour, it refers to disability, whether you're an aboriginal or your gender, but it does not refer to age. So I don't see any inconsistency between the amendment I'm putting forward and the employment equity legislation.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Jackson. On behalf of the committee, Mr Winninger, I'd like to thank you for coming here and giving us your presentation.
Mr Winninger: Thank you. I thought the questions most insightful.
The Chair: I'd like to call forward our next witness, Mr Gord Mills, the MPP for Durham East.
Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. It's indeed a pleasure for me to be here this afternoon to talk to something that's very close to my heart. I have no notes. I've no brief. I'm just going to tell you the experiences I have had and my family has had through discriminatory retirement. I'm not going to get into, nor am I about to engage in debate about professors and their lots in life or what happens to them. I'm just talking about ordinary folks, the ordinary working men and women in this province who suffer from mandatory retirement.
If you'll bear with me, I'd just like to go back a few years and you'll see where I'm all coming from. In 1942, I left school and became an apprentice piano tuner and repairer, believe it or not. That tenure at the end of five years would give me the right to practise the trade of a piano tuner/repairer.
At that time my father was working. He was employed by the city of Brighton in England as sort of a general assistant in many trades. As was the custom when the war commenced, because he was a municipal employee he was seconded to a heavy rescue group of people who went around and dug people out of ruins of the houses that had been bombed.
In 1944, when the rocket sites were overrun, obviously the need to dig people out of rubble ceased dramatically, and I can remember that he was called in and told that his services were no longer required. At that time he was 57 years old. He said, "Well, can I go back to my job?" They said, "No, you're just too old for that, but you've got your pension coming." The pension was £2 a week. Obviously, at £2 a week, even though we lived in a council house, we couldn't afford the rent. We had a family conference and we decided how best we would overcome this.
I remember -- I was evacuated in the war, so I had some knowledge of farming, believe it or not -- I said to my dad, "I understand that if you work on a farm you get a tied house, and that way we can circumvent the rent," because there was no way at all that we were going to go on what we called the dole. He wasn't going to have that at all.
In those days I was pretty skinny so I put on two overcoats because I figured that a farmer wanted big, strong people. I put on the two overcoats and applied for a job. I got this job, and we got this house. I just wanted to tell you that in three years my father had died. He was so overcome by the fact that he had no money, he had no work and couldn't get work. It was a steady downhill slide for him.
I had the opportunity to speak to that in Mr Winninger's bill when it was introduced in the House. At that time I said on the committee that it squandered people's talents, it forced age-based retirements. It squanders people's talents, it ruins their health and it drives many elderly people even into despair and poverty, and I said at that time that I can speak from the experience of my old father.
Later on, I worked as a fill-in policeman and I ended up in the Canadian Forces and went through a number of courses, a number of trainings, until the age of 50. I thought I had reached the absolute height of my ability. I was not only very knowledgeable about police issues and policing, I was also a very fit person. The military in those days had compulsory training, and every day I would run 10 miles and on the weekend I would run 25 miles a day, at the age of 50.
But because it was my birthday I was called in and I was told that I had to retire because I'd reached the age limit. I knew it was coming, but nevertheless, it's very traumatic to be deprived of one's living at 50. Myself and some of my colleagues, we left, we were very bitter about it. People still continue to be very bitter about that today. We started a job search, and I must have written, I would think, hundreds and hundreds of letters. I got the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and all the local papers. I had a system and we all did. We sat down and we wrote hundreds of letters.
People became despondent. Some people unfortunately had had children later in life, who were going to high school and who they had to support. You may think, "Well, you got a pension." You're right, we got a pension. But the pension was based upon the fact that it didn't kick in to its maximum until you were 60. So for 10 years one had to have a job, to find employment to supplement one's way of life. I can tell you it wasn't very much.
Through this job search, luckily, I was able to secure a job with the provincial government. My colleagues were not so lucky, and the traumatic effect of all this was that when I got a job, they felt so bad about it they didn't talk to me any more. They just ignored me. One of my colleagues was so desperate that he eventually committed suicide. Being retired at 50 is a very, very traumatic experience. It's devastating, and I imagine it's no different when one gets older.
1700
Subsequent to that, I worked for the provincial government. After I had been there 14 years and I was coming up to be 62 or 63 -- I forget what it is, time goes by so quickly -- somebody said to me, "They're going to offer you the golden handshake." I must say I thought about this for a long time. I really am a workaholic and I didn't like the idea, but subtly they put pressure on you.
When you get this golden handshake, your supervisor will come to you and say, "You know, you've only got a couple of months left to make up your mind." "Yes, I'm thinking about it," and there's that gentle dig. Then a month away they say, "You know, you've only got a month left to make up your mind," and you can feel this pressure being put on you because they know you've got this opportunity for the golden handshake, and people within the organization where you work are pushing for you to go. Believe it or not, that's the object: to get rid of the older worker.
Towards the end of my time I decided I wasn't going to quit because, as I say, I like working. I've worked for 50 years. I just love it and I can't see myself not doing any work, so I made the decision that I wasn't going to go. Previously, since I live close to the headquarters, I've been able to go in there and do the sorts of things that -- just through the proximity. On the day I said I wasn't going to go, I had a message from my supervisor, who lived in Belleville, that said, "As of tomorrow, you won't go in that building. You will report through me," just to make life difficult.
To cut a long story short, the next day I went in with all my documentation and I put it on the table and said, "I'm not taking that, because really you're trying to force me out in a very, very subtle way." They make out they don't. They say things like, "What are you going to do. Are you going to drive a taxi or something?" or "With your skills you could work at Canadian Tire. Have you got your application in?" -- all these mundane sorts of jobs to go with your pension.
I must say I found that very upsetting to me. Here I was, had never done anything wrong in my life and then, just because of my age, subtly my employer was putting pressure on me to leave and to resort to driving a taxi. Working part-time in Canadian Tire was another suggestion, or maybe there's a job at the A&P or something like that.
Anyway, I licked my wounds and I went south. You know the story. I went down there, got fed up, came back and got a job as a newspaper reporter. I was very lucky and subsequently very fortunate and proud to be elected to be here. But I'd just like to say, in closing my thoughts, I think discrimination about retirement is as odious as racism or sexism in today's society. I don't think there's any place for it.
There are older people who are at the height of their powers. They have a great, worldly knowledge of so many things, and I think they make a wonderful contribution to society in many walks of life and wherever. I know there's a senior citizens' place near me called Wilmot Creek, and there are about 1,000 people down there. The talents there that make that place tick and revolve around it are just absolutely amazing.
I've spoken to a number of them about that and they all feel somewhat that they've been pushed out of the workplace. I know there's one fellow there who's been pushed out of an oil company and he still feels very bitter about it. So what am I saying in this committee? I appreciate your bill. I think it's in the right direction. What I'd like to say is that what we should have is a cooling-off period, I think. When you reach the age where you have to retire, be it at 50 or be it at 65 or whenever it is, you should be given the opportunity to go away and think about it.
They say: "Make plans. Work out your money. Do this. Do that." You can do all that and it doesn't make any sense at all, believe me. You should have the opportunity, after you've signed off, to look at it up to about a year or so, surely enough time to make your decision, and come back and say: "It's not for me. I really want to come back." That's the way I'd like to see this bill have the condition in it that one could return to the workplace if one didn't like compulsory, mandatory retirement.
With those remarks, I thank you, Mr Chair. I rambled on a bit but I just want to bring to the attention of the committee some firsthand feelings of what forced mandatory retirement has meant to me. It changed my career through my parents and it changed my career later on in life.
The Chair: Thank you. Questions and comments?
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I'm going to try to make a quick comment and maybe ask one or two questions. I'm a strong supporter of this bill in the sense that one should not discriminate because of age, but there are some realities we must face, we know, as we get older. Some of our reflexes go or sometimes our eyes go a bit and we're not what we were at 30 or 35.
I will take the approach, as Mr Winninger has, in the sense of the human rights part of it, not the economics. Economics always settle in afterwards anyhow.
Do you believe at a certain age, say the age of 55 or so, maybe the employer should have the right to ask for a medical to be done annually, testing for certain things, maybe one's reflexes, one's eyes, which may be an impediment in doing the job?
Mr Mills: I got the feeling about this compulsory retirement that people inwardly know their capabilities, their qualities, and if they can hoe the row. When I was in the military, we were subject to a physical examination of great intensity every year after age 40 to see if you were fit. If you weren't fit, I suppose it was, "Cheerio, you're gone."
I think most people recognize fairness to their employer, to their fellow workers, in so far as safety and things like that are concerned; they would recognize if they were going to be a burden on society. All I'm saying is that those people who feel they can make a contribution honestly, who are fit and up with it, should be given that opportunity to stay on. I don't imagine that people who are not capable would stay on, because you've got to live with yourself. If I weren't capable of doing a job, I would feel very guilty of trying to hang on, and I wouldn't do that. So I don't see that as a big problem.
Mr Curling: One last quick question. We all know that as we reach a certain age, our mind says we can do certain things but our body doesn't follow suit.
Mr Jackson: Do you have any specific activity in mind, Mr Curling?
Mr Curling: A specific activity? I'm sure Mr Mills would share this with us; he plays a game of cricket or so. You have seen many beautiful shots that you could have made yourself at that age, but take bat in hand and you realize your reflexes are not there and the ball is not dispatched to the boundary as efficiently and effectively as possible. The last to admit that is the individuals themselves, because they live, I don't want to say in the past, but those brilliant strokes they were making before. Did you go through those kinds of exercises at times? Mark you, you were trying to prove to the world that you were running 50 miles.
Mr Jackson: How good was your bat, Mr Mills?
Mr Mills: I'll answer that by sharing a letter I received the other day. This fellow wrote to me and said, "You know, Gord Mills, you're not as important as you think you are," but he spelled the word "important" as "impotent." So I was kind of glad of that remark.
But I agree with you, Alvin, that one tends to still think one can do the impossible. I know I do, but I think if I were working for someone and I had that honesty with myself and fairness to my employer, I'd say, "I should retire; I'm not pulling my weight," and I would step aside. At the same time, if I feel and evidence would suggest that there's no difference in my job skills and output, I should be given that opportunity to step back and look and say, "Yes, I'd like to come back."
My brother-in-law in England worked for Imperial Oil. He was retired, and they asked him to come back. He came back, and then after a little while, he said, "I can't do it." But individually, I think we should be given that opportunity.
1710
Mr Jackson: Mr Mills, I was impressed by your personal stories. Although one was the example of your father, where he was told his services were no longer required, albeit during wartime conditions, you also referenced your own situation, where you found yourself unemployed. You talked at length about the disenchantment and the discouragement. I'm going to ask you the same question I asked Mr Winninger, because I am concerned about this issue of why age, if it's so important in the Human Rights Code, is not being considered under your government's employment equity. If Mr Winninger had difficulty following it as a lawyer, I know that as a layperson you're not having difficulty following this.
The point is that this amendment is in the Human Rights Code and that we now are going to say to a large number of seniors who've lost their jobs through no fault of their own or their employers' that if they're not in a target group they will be doubly discriminated against, because of age.
I'm not asking you to defend the strapping young 30-year-old, who clearly is outside of it. I think the legislation understood and intended that. What I'm asking you to look at is why the concept of age isn't important in terms of protecting people with employment. Because they will be: If you're not in pay equity, you're out of it. Quite clearly, the more than half of the population who are seniors are going to be discriminated against with employment equity. You personally went through that experience. Would you consider amending the employment equity so that both pieces of legislation together provide the very kinds of protection and respect for employment of older workers that you have spoken to so eloquently?
Mr Mills: I don't want to put my foot in anything, but at the same time I feel that I have to be truthful. I'd like to see something built into that equity to protect the older worker. I know I have, and I'm sure you do, a number of people come into my constituency office every Friday when I'm there. These people are not 60, these people are 40, 45, and it's impossible for them now to get work because of their age. We can say, "You musn't discriminate about this, that and the other," but how do we know that when you go for a job interview -- you no longer have to put down your date of birth or anything like that, and they get the form and say, "This guy looks really qualified." So you march in for the interview and they say, "Oh, oh, look what we've got here."
How do you get out of discrimination? I think age discrimination in employment is there now in a very big way. I don't think people are treated fairly, because there's this perception these days that if you're over 30, certainly if you're over 40, that you're unemployable. It's sad.
I don't write the legislation -- I don't know what my colleague was thinking -- but maybe we do have to have something in there to prevent this, if we can. It's going to be very difficult because people are naturally going to scratch their head and say, "This guy might get a hernia easily," or "This guy is going to be off. We don't want that." All that goes through their mind from an economic point of view, even though they may not be discriminatory in their being. All these economic factors might go through their head. But you're right; I think so.
Mr Jackson: Thank you. You've given me a very honest and straightforward answer. I appreciate that very much, Gordon.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Jackson. We have Ms Swarbrick, Mr Malkowski, Ms Akande and Mr Winninger, so could we have one question and a brief supplementary from each.
Ms Swarbrick: I was going to begin by saying that this time I do have just one question. Mr Mills, you did an excellent job of describing the problem facing senior workers in our society. I'm sure that all of us can relate to having sat in our constituency offices with people 45, 50, 52, 55 years old who are desperately trying to find work, especially in this economic situation.
Mr Winninger made reference to the projection that there will be a shortage of workers in the future. Personally, I have a hard time foreseeing that in the foreseeable future. I'm wondering if you could comment on what you think the impact this legislation prohibiting discrimination against workers after 65 years of age would have on the situation facing people who are 45, 48, 50, 58 and looking for work.
Mr Mills: My opinion is that there aren't going to be that many. Most people are quite happy to retire and to go away and live happily ever after, but there are a few oddballs among society, and I think that the few people who really have the drive and want to keep working would be so small as not to make any significant impact on the overall job situation.
And I think that the older, more experienced person has a great value in the workplace, their expertise, advice. How often do you see an older worker approached and asked: "You've been around here a long time. What do you think?" I believe the seniors have a network now of retired management people who will go into a place on a contract to try to put the company or organization to rights.
I don't see a tremendous impact because I don't see a tremendous amount of people who want to work, but at the same time I think those who want to work should be given that opportunity if they should.
Ms Swarbrick: Would you not see employers likely resorting to greater discrimination against the 45- and 55-year-olds because of their fear that if this law passes they're then going to be left with somebody they're going to end up having to make the incompetence case about at some point? As we know, most managers shy away from that; in fact, in unionized workplaces they're very happy to end up saying, "I can't do anything with this person because the union won't let me." Would you not see in fact more employers shying away from hiring the 45- and 55-year-olds because of their fear of ending up in that bind?
Mr Mills: That's a good point, but I think that those hiring someone of 45 and relating it to someone who wants to work on at 65 would be few and far between. If people could be encouraged to take on the older workers, I don't think they should be discouraged because, "Hey, I'm going to be stuck with this guy till he's 72." I think that's a rarity. I don't see that happening, or I don't see that as a problem, to be quite honest.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): Your experience and your stories had quite an impact. I'm thinking about senior citizens out there who have some kind of ability to work just as young people do; I'm thinking there are many seniors out there. But let's say a senior citizen were to apply for some kind of support service similar to what disabled people apply for now under employment equity or other kinds of things. People sometimes misunderstand and think that because you're older you're unable to do certain things even though you can function well in society, and do, just as they think that about disabled people now. Do you think support services would be helpful to senior citizens when it comes to that; similar kinds of things we're thinking about for employment equity?
Mr Mills: I think they would. Succinctly, yes.
Ms Akande: I was interested in your stories and I appreciate your having shared them. One of the things I want to remind you of, as a preface to my question, is that the Human Rights Code does in fact forbid discrimination against people under 65. At some point, when I have more opportunity, I will ask you how you were asked to leave at 50.
But knowing that there's not always a positive relationship between old age and competence or incompetence, how would you suggest that people gauge the abilities of the older worker? Do you feel that the standard or the frequency would be greater than it would be for the regular worker? After all, we do have 25-year-old people who hang on and are non-productive.
1720
Mr Mills: I appreciate that question. Maybe I'm completely off base, but I think as one gets older one realizes very clearly one's capabilities. At 25, some people haven't got the snap to do anything, and we can't help that. Say I were still employed in my paper job, for instance, and I felt I wasn't putting out -- I must say that this paper job used to entail something I didn't really appreciate, and that was selling advertising; to make the world go round, I used to do the two things. But I think if I reached that point where I said, "I'm not pulling my weight, it's just not on" -- when you get older, you have the ability to discern that very clearly.
Ms Akande: So you're talking self-evaluation.
Mr Mills: Yes, self-evaluation. Then you can tell. I think the situation is a little different, too, in that when one's 65, one does have a fallback to the Canada pension, the social security pension and perhaps another company pension, so the work isn't really that important. Working is very important to me, but the compensation I get for the work is not important to me. I get great satisfaction out of working, doing things and being busy. I think when you offer people the opportunity to work on, that really is the crux of it, that they're not thinking about the money but "my contribution to society, and I feel I'm making a contribution."
When you reach that point, when you lose your eyesight or whatever it may be, you make that decision and you're honest and you say, "I can't go on," which is a lot different than someone who is what I shall call snapless at 30.
Mr Winninger: I'd just like to thank you for your support for my bill and for putting a human face on the issue of mandatory retirement. I'm a little curious. We all know the story of when you went south. Mr Curling said earlier that as we get older we lose some of our energy. Knowing your energy level now, I can imagine it must have been boundless as a young man. When you did go south, what brought you back here?
Mr Mills: I went down there and -- as I said, I've worked for 50 years and I just can't bear wasting my time. To me, to retire is wasting my time. I can't bear wasting time because I think every minute of everyone's life is so precious and just to go around and mull around and say hi to George and "What'd you have for dinner?" and "Hi, Mary, are you going to play bingo tonight?" to me is an absolute waste of one's life and one's time. I put up with about four or five weeks of this and I said: "Enough's enough. We've got to get out of here before I go crazy." My wife, God bless her, understands me. Not many people would be in that position to say, "You do what you like, and if you do what makes you happy, I'm happy with you doing what you're happy doing."
I had something else on my mind I was going to tell you, but I've forgotten it. I hope I'm not accused of being -- one of the failings of getting older.
The Chair: Mrs Carter, one brief question.
Ms Carter: Something just occurred to me. You said hang on till they lose their eyesight or something, but of course one of the categories of people we're looking at giving job equity to is in fact the disabled, who might be somebody with diminished sight or whatever. I'm just wondering how you would draw the line.
Mr Mills: What I'm saying, Ms Carter, is that in my last job before I came here I was a newspaper reporter, and I proofread papers and did all things like that. What I'm saying is that in that capacity I would very easily recognize that I wasn't pulling my weight and I'd say to the boss, "Look, I can't see the print any more" and I would withdraw from that. I appreciate that the equity is for the disabled and the disabled includes the sightless person, but I just use the job I was doing at that time.
Ms Carter: Because there is a distinction between a particular disability and getting old and frail in a general way.
Somebody might still be very energetic, yet his sight might be worse or he might not be as good at walking around or whatever.
Mr Mills: Yes. I know what I was going to tell you. Just in closing, I find it rather ironic that the year before the military forced me into retirement at 50, as being over the hill and couldn't do this and couldn't do that, it was the Olympic Games in Montreal, 1976. They tried to get a composite team of all age groups in the military to run from Base Borden to Montreal. They said, "Wouldn't it be lovely if we got a guy who was nearly 50 to do it?" They said, "Sergeant Mills, would you be interested in this project?" and I said, "Very much so." So here we have an incident that one year before they said to me, "You're over the hill; you can't perform," that year they asked me if I would represent the 45-to-50 age group in running from Borden to Montreal non-stop in two days. It just boggles the mind what these people are coming up with.
Thank you very much for having me here.
The Chair: Mr Mills, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for taking the time out this afternoon and giving us your presentation.
Having no further business before this committee, this committee stands adjourned until right after routine proceedings tomorrow afternoon.
The committee adjourned at 1726.