Mandatory Retirement to be Eliminated in Parliament

[DocAV8R]

Home - Parliament of Canada Section Home
C-481
Second Session, Fortieth Parliament,
57-58 Elizabeth II, 2009
HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA


An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code (mandatory retirement age)


first reading, November 6, 2009


Ms. Folco

402357

Mme Folco


SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code to prohibit federally regulated employers — that is, private-sector employers subject to federal acts and regulations, as well as the federal public administration — from setting a mandatory retirement age.

2nd Session, 40th Parliament,


57-58 Elizabeth II, 2009



house of commons of canada



BILL C-481


An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code (mandatory retirement age)



Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:



R.S., c. H-6


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

L.R., ch. H-6



1. Subsection 9(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is repealed.



2. Paragraphs 15(1)(b) and (c) of the Act are replaced by the following:


(b) employment of an individual is refused or terminated because that individual has not reached the minimum age that applies to that employment by law or under regulations, which may be made by the Governor in Council for the purposes of this paragraph;

R.S., c. L-2

CANADA LABOUR CODE

3. Paragraph 235(2)(b) of the Canada Labour Code is repealed.


Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons Available from:
Publishing and Depository Services
Public Works and Government Services Canada

[Rockie]

Can't blame that on the flypast60 group can we?

I have an idea. How about we quit wasting time, money and misplaced anger and get on with implementing this? Oh yes, and do it in a way that doesn't penalize those that stay past 60 or we will find ourselves right back before the HRTC.

[the original tony]

If i was that concerned about their welfare I would have been a nurse or home care worker.
How about we implement this so that it doesn't penalize those that signed up under the guise of 60 and we're done. Let's start worrying about the ones who need food and money now to raise their families so that we too can become old and greedy, i mean, fighters of discrimination.
Allow me to go and vomit,

Tony

[Rockie]

Let's start worrying about the ones who need food and money now

I submit that this would have been a much more useful and realistic use of your time and indignation than...well, you know...

[CAL]

can you apply this to aviation though?..what about transport in general...trains/planes/ships....maybe certain industries its ok to work until you die in your seat but for others it represents serious consequences...can a 78 year old guy be in charge of your King Air going into some arctic strip in the middle of winter?...just an example I have seen some footage...sometimes the old saying that is quoted to me about once a day is, 'thats life son!', well your an old man now...time to go...'thats life son!'...you cant work till you die...its stupid...maybe past 60 ya...but unlimited?

[DocAV8R]

998 aviation companies and airlines in Canada are dealing with over age 60 retirements and even no mandatory retirement age. Regular Medicals and other recurrency requirements have been deemed sufficient by Transport Canada in the 80's. Numerous studies around the world have shown that MORE EXPERIENCED PILOTS ARE SAFER!

Safety has never been an issue for either side of this argument in court because the evidence is all in favour of older pilots. Air Canada and ACPA never contested this. ICAO, IATA, ALPA, the FAA, JAA and the rest of the world have conceded this point. Anyone who brings up safety is out of touch with this subject, the reports and numerous papers and decisions on this subject. It may make good comedy in the absurd but that is all.

Air Canada is one of the few remaining dinosaurs, but it too will be forced to change. It will be sooner than later...

[AMM]

The baby boomers are to "heavy" to retire and be supported by an unprecedentedly small active workforce ratio. Population booms of that size mess everything up. From a general social standpoint, the average baby boomer needs to work till they die (more or less).

Nevertheless, there are plenty of greedy old fart out there that hide behind a false financial predicament and refuse to retire, even though they easily could. Some have even retired with generous bonus packages, only to return as contractors and deny a younger individual the opportunity to build (and even start) their career. Oh but "the younger guy doesn't have any experience". Well, how's he gonna get any?

[beast]

Has anyone else noticed that the only two who support this here are DocAV8R and Rockie?

[Rockie]

No, there are more. We just write more about it that's all. Plus there are many within the company who support it but are silent knowing it's going to happen anyway. The only reason I'm vocal about it is because I think the union is doing the pilots a huge disservice by promoting this false hope that it can be stopped, and continuing to fight it is going to cost us all a lot of money and heartache. I would much prefer our union and pilots had a better grasp of the situation and did something positive about it. But most of you cannot see past your anger at the people taking this to the HRTC, and you and the union continue to talk about the contract as if it had something to do with this issue. It doesn't.

I also know that in time you will all come to view 60+ as good.

[yycflyguy]

I also know that in time you will all come to view 60+ as good.

Thanks Rockie... er, I mean, my Master.

You want this, don't you? The hate is swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant.

It is unavoidable. It is your destiny. You, like your father, are now mine.

[DocAV8R]

Facts:
As early as 1986, Canada, having earlier abandoned its National upper age limit on Constitutional grounds, filed a "difference" with ICAO on its age limits, requesting, that the ICAO limits be modified or revoked. ICAO has been looking into increasing age limits ever since.

In 1986, the Federal government eliminated mandatory retirement for its employees. Air Canada was a Crown corporation at that time.

In the 2005 ICAO Full Analysis Report:
Canada recommended no upper age limit.
Canada

Pilots are healthier than the average population of the same age (by elimination of serious disease), and the older ones that continue to fly and renew their certificates are a
robust subgroup.

and,

International Air Transport Association (IATA)

IATA agrees with the conclusion of the Aerospace Medical Association (AsMA) that there is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based upon age alone. Furthermore, many Contracting States already apply either a higher than 60 or no age restriction, with no evidence of reduced levels of safety.

Based on the above, IATA would recommend:
That the age 60 rule in ICAO Annex 1, Chapter 2, paragraph 2.1.10 should be replaced by “age 65”
with the following associated measures:
C To operate in multi-crew aircraft only
C Other pilot(s) must be younger than 60 years
C To be subject to medical examinations every 6 months
IATA suggests, however, that criteria and methodology for determining continued fitness be developed

Note: Robert Milton- (You may recognize the name) was the Head of IATA

ICAO, IATA and Air Canada all have head offices within blocks of each other in Montreal

[yycflyguy]

Note: Robert Milton- (You may recognize the name) was the Head of IATA

ICAO, IATA and Air Canada all have head offices within blocks of each other in Montreal[/quote]

Yeah but RM is not even on the continent... probably wise.

[Rockie]

I also know that in time you will all come to view 60+ as good.

Thanks Rockie... er, I mean, my Master.

You want this, don't you? The hate is swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant.

It is unavoidable. It is your destiny. You, like your father, are now mine.

I freely admit I'm a fan too. Although I prefer Yoda.

The reason I think most people will come around to the 60+ in time is because at last count there are over 70 people who would have agreed with you 10 years ago but don't today. And that's without the benefit of actually working under the new reality and seeing what it has to offer, which we will.

[El Comat]

First of all, I just want to say that I DO NOT support staying past the age which, when you signed up, was the mandatory retirement age. Much like you old farts tell the junior guys "well, you knew the pay when you came here!" (as they sit in their left seat that was vacated by someone at age 60), I say "you knew the retirement age when you came here!"

However, seeing as this is a bleeding-heart, liberal country, I have given in to the fact that there is no stopping the greedy baby-boomers who are putting the change into action. I say go ahead and implement the new rules, but with a twist - everyone hired from here on after (or after the ruling is in effect), has the option to go past 60, as they would be hired under the new rules. This way, those that are under the old system live up to their end of the bargain (sounds fair to me), and those under the new system are aware, from day 1, what they can expect.

I suspect that current "fly past 60" group would have none of this, because it wouldn't benefit them. It would benefit those who are on the property who want to go out at 60, and would, allegedly, "benefit" (if you can call working till you die a benefit) all AC pilots hired from here on in.

So let's do some math....my plan would probably please 80-90% of current AC pilots, plus, potentially, every new hire from now on (because, hey, people can now fly past 60, so the fly past 60 group has won, right??).

So let me ask you "fly past 60"ers, what's not to like about my plan? You keep almost all current pilots happy, plus you've achieved your "human rights" victory that you've cried so loud about!

I'll tell you why you don't like my plan....because it doesn't benefit YOU! And therein lies the greed that your peers have so correctly labeled you with.

EC

[Rockie]

I have given in to the fact that there is no stopping the greedy baby-boomers who are putting the change into action.

Surely by now you've seen the reports of our aging demographic (baby boomers), and how the government has no plan or idea how a shrinking work force is going to support a rapidly growing number of retirees putting immense pressure on pensions and health care. This isn't a fictitious or faraway problem, it's starting to happen now. Wouldn't you rather the baby boomers support themselves and contribute rather than recieve, thus taking the pressure off you?

I suspect that current "fly past 60" group would have none of this, because it wouldn't benefit them.

That doesn't really matter because neither the HRTC or Canadian Law will have any of this. Mandatory retirement at a certain birthday is dead. That means for everyone.

It would benefit those who are on the property who want to go out at 60,

Until they reach 60 and wish to continue working.

So let me ask you "fly past 60"ers, what's not to like about my plan?

It ignores reality. Just like our union, company and pilots have been doing all along.

[Disco Stu]

So this bill would stop and EMPLOYER from setting mandatory retirement, but would it prevent a union from negotiating a fixed retirement age? Think of it as a benefit.....

[Rockie]

So this bill would stop and EMPLOYER from setting mandatory retirement, but would it prevent a union from negotiating a fixed retirement age? Think of it as a benefit.....

"1. Subsection 9(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is repealed."

Employee organizations

9. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for an employee organization on a prohibited ground of discrimination
(a) to exclude an individual from full membership in the organization;
(b) to expel or suspend a member of the organization; or
(c) to limit, segregate, classify or otherwise act in relation to an individual in a way that would deprive the individual of employment opportunities, or limit employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the status of the individual, where the individual is a member of the organization or where any of the obligations of the organization pursuant to a collective agreement relate to the individual.

Exception

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), it is not a discriminatory practice for an employee organization to exclude, expel or suspend an individual from membership in the organization because that individual has reached the normal age of retirement for individuals working in positions similar to the position of that individual.

Definition of "employee organization"

(3) For the purposes of this section and sections 10 and 60, "employee organization" includes a trade union or other organization of employees or local thereof, the purposes of which include the negotiation, on behalf of employees, of the terms and conditions of employment with employers. [1976-77, c.33, s.9; 1980-81-82-83, c.143, s.4.]

All sections of the proposed changes include the union as well as the employer.

Forced retirement is not a benefit in any reasonable persons interpretation. The "benefit" is being able to retire after 25 years of service if you choose. That will remain unless we change it.

[Rockie]

I have an idea you guys might like. Since we can retire after 25 years service with a pension, why don't we force guys to retire after 25 years regardless of their age?

Guys who join at 50 get to work to 75, and guys who join at 25 have to leave at 50. Of course there will be no opportunity to increase the pension by working longer, but it's all about fairness right? Think about how fast you'll advance into that high paying seat. Your career will be all mapped out.

What's that? You want to work past 50?

Sorry.

[yycflyguy]

I like it. After 25 years of service I will be exactly 60. Huh, how 'bout that? ...and all those that were hired with a silver spoon in their mouth at age 23 will be long gone. Sweet.

[El Comat]

I have an idea you guys might like. Since we can retire after 25 years service with a pension, why don't we force guys to retire after 25 years regardless of their age?

Guys who join at 50 get to work to 75, and guys who join at 25 have to leave at 50. Of course there will be no opportunity to increase the pension by working longer, but it's all about fairness right? Think about how fast you'll advance into that high paying seat. Your career will be all mapped out.

What's that? You want to work past 50?

Sorry.

Sorry about what?? If that was the plan I got hired under, then sure, I'd take it. If I didn't like it, I WOULDN'T TAKE THE JOB.