No "redirection" at all, just pointing out that this would be a non issue if the law had been adhered to in the first place and they were never forced to retire.......... And I have no idea what your performance has to do with thisyycflyguy wrote:That is quite the redirection of blame. My performance is lacking so obviously it is someone else's fault.Norwegianwood wrote:IF this is true, I place BLAME squarly in the lap of AC for forcing them out 5 and 7 years ago and acpa for NOT representing them at the time to make sure they were current until now.massey308 wrote:actually it hasnt. i will spare the details.flight ops is growing more and more concerned about what to do with their training.
AC now has an obligation to bring them back to the standard they were at at the time of their forced retirement.
Not my opinion but that of the court and HRT............
Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
-
Norwegianwood
- Rank 4

- Posts: 291
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:16 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
-
rotaxdriver
- Rank 0

- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:31 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
hi girls!
long time listener, first time caller...
forced retirement.....
seems to me that if you want to work past 65 you're either greedy or bored.
personally, i enjoy my job, but i don't want to do this when i'm old. seriously, rides, security, medicals, de-icing, all that crap. it's too much f-ing work!
but, no matter how you slice it, manditory retirement is going by the wayside.
and i notice thats its being encouraged by those who will gain the most, as usual.
and probably by the guys who were rubbing their hands together waiting for some old fart to retire so they could get the over paid seat.
now its their turn and they want to stay.
well, forced retirement was there when they hired on and they benefited from it. so how about;
from this day forth, anybody hired on gets to stay as long as they are physically and mentally able and those hired before today, at age 60, can go to mexico and drink beer.
and anyway, this is probably a moot point because at my place of work, no one over 60 can take it!
xx
rotaxdriver
long time listener, first time caller...
forced retirement.....
seems to me that if you want to work past 65 you're either greedy or bored.
personally, i enjoy my job, but i don't want to do this when i'm old. seriously, rides, security, medicals, de-icing, all that crap. it's too much f-ing work!
but, no matter how you slice it, manditory retirement is going by the wayside.
and i notice thats its being encouraged by those who will gain the most, as usual.
and probably by the guys who were rubbing their hands together waiting for some old fart to retire so they could get the over paid seat.
now its their turn and they want to stay.
well, forced retirement was there when they hired on and they benefited from it. so how about;
from this day forth, anybody hired on gets to stay as long as they are physically and mentally able and those hired before today, at age 60, can go to mexico and drink beer.
and anyway, this is probably a moot point because at my place of work, no one over 60 can take it!
xx
rotaxdriver
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
There are many other reasons, but you have a closed mind, and anyway they are moot, because ... as you say below ....rotaxdriver wrote:seems to me that if you want to work past 65 you're either greedy or bored.
... no matter how you slice it, manditory retirement is going by the wayside.
-
SilentMajority
- Rank 2

- Posts: 77
- Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:57 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Dear Rotaxdriver.....this might come as a major shock .....but.....you do realize that Air Canada is the ONLY, YES THE ONE and ONLY carrier that still flings their pilots out the door at the ripe old age of 60. Yup, the rest of the world moved past this a long time ago.
You are, however, forgiven for this oversight as those at AC who are opposing their own pilots flying past the age of 60 would have everyone believing that this is a first, that the FP 60 group are attempting to set a new trend. Not true....they're just trying to catch up with the rest of the flying world.
And as for the concept of flying past 65??....this unfortunately is the unintended consequence of the battle that is still being fought to merely do what the rest of the world already enjoys....namely working a few years or even just a few months past your 60th birthday.
My take on V&K (and their painstaking fight for which I now have great respect for )....had they been allowed to stay on past 60.....when the rest of the airline world changed their retirement age.... they would have been long gone by now and the notion of flying beyond 65 would be all but non-existant.
ACPA truly did bring this upon themselves. Which will bring us to a new thread at some point in the future titled...
"ACPA.....is it time for a change?"
You are, however, forgiven for this oversight as those at AC who are opposing their own pilots flying past the age of 60 would have everyone believing that this is a first, that the FP 60 group are attempting to set a new trend. Not true....they're just trying to catch up with the rest of the flying world.
And as for the concept of flying past 65??....this unfortunately is the unintended consequence of the battle that is still being fought to merely do what the rest of the world already enjoys....namely working a few years or even just a few months past your 60th birthday.
My take on V&K (and their painstaking fight for which I now have great respect for )....had they been allowed to stay on past 60.....when the rest of the airline world changed their retirement age.... they would have been long gone by now and the notion of flying beyond 65 would be all but non-existant.
ACPA truly did bring this upon themselves. Which will bring us to a new thread at some point in the future titled...
"ACPA.....is it time for a change?"
Last edited by SilentMajority on Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster

- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Age alone is really not a determining factor to fairly determine any pilots ability to fly any aircraft.
If age were the criteria how did Bob Hoover manage to fly his air display routine into his eighties?
If age were the criteria how did Bob Hoover manage to fly his air display routine into his eighties?
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Rotaxdriver, perhaps a fact check is in order to see that many airlines around the world still use 60, some also still use less.SilentMajority wrote:Dear Rotaxdriver.....this might come as a major shock .....but.....you do realize that Air Canada is the ONLY, YES THE ONE and ONLY carrier that still flings their pilots out the door at the ripe old age of 60. Yup, the rest of the world moved past this a long time ago.
Unless for you, the U.S. represents the entire world.
Kick the tires and light the fires...
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Jazz uses age 65 then you get the punt!! The age 60 guys want no age limit. So AC guys are not alone in this fight.SilentMajority wrote:
Dear Rotaxdriver.....this might come as a major shock .....but.....you do realize that Air Canada is the ONLY, YES THE ONE and ONLY carrier that still flings their pilots out the door at the ripe old age of 60. Yup, the rest of the world moved past this a long time ago.
-
Johnny Mapleleaf
- Rank 3

- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:42 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
You can thank ACPA for that. It was because Jazz uses age 65 that George Vilven filed his original complaint.BLZD1 wrote:Jazz uses age 65 then you get the punt!! The age 60 guys want no age limit. So AC guys are not alone in this fight.
If ACPA had agreed to let him stay to age 65 when he originally asked them to help him oppose his termination of employment, there would have been no Tribunal hearing and no decision that the mandatory retirement exemption is entirely illegal. Be careful what you object to.
-
Lost in Saigon
- Rank 8

- Posts: 852
- Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:35 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
ACPA could have agreed to let guys go to 65, and for everyone who stayed one year past 60, one could retire one year early with full benefits.
ZERO career stagnation.
ZERO career stagnation.
-
accumulous
- Rank 5

- Posts: 317
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:05 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Apparently the word is that some JAZZ pilots are now challenging their age 65 retirement that went into effect back in 2002, based on the AC August, 2009 ruling?
Does anyone know if WestJet is already open past 65? Did they go open-ended as per Transport Canada right from the beginning about 10 years ago? They were in fact hiring pilots at age 60 many years ago.
Does anyone know if WestJet is already open past 65? Did they go open-ended as per Transport Canada right from the beginning about 10 years ago? They were in fact hiring pilots at age 60 many years ago.
-
SilentMajority
- Rank 2

- Posts: 77
- Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:57 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
You have hit the proverbial nail on the head. Since the 70's, EVERY properly funded Early Retirement Incentive Package has been over-subscribed...at least as far as I can recall.Lost in Saigon wrote:ACPA could have agreed to let guys go to 65, and for everyone who stayed one year past 60, one could retire one year early with full benefits.
ZERO career stagnation.
Despite the ability to remain flying past 60, there will always be those that have "had enough" and will eagerly depart into early retirement provided the penalty is not too great.
It is still not too late for ACPA to get their collective heads around this. If ACPA had focused it's resources around balancing those staying on past 60 (probably not nearly as many as you might think) with those who wanted to be on their way early, we would be light years ahead of where we find ourselves now.
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Mr. Silent , you are so correct but ACPA approaches things much like the company does i.e. From a negative point of view. Case in point we are penalized 10% for taking sick time yet when we retire we get zero for any sick time left over. If we paid out 50% for what we had in our sick bank when we retire nobody would book off! Much like the age 60 fiasco, use honey not vinegar......you would be surprised just how well it works 
-
Morry Bund
- Rank 3

- Posts: 122
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:32 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Now, didn't somebody already suggest this? Sometime around the summer of 2006? On the ACPA Forum?SilentMajority wrote:You have hit the proverbial nail on the head. Since the 70's, EVERY properly funded Early Retirement Incentive Package has been over-subscribed...at least as far as I can recall.
Despite the ability to remain flying past 60, there will always be those that have "had enough" and will eagerly depart into early retirement provided the penalty is not too great.
-
rotaxdriver
- Rank 0

- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:31 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
i know i have a closed mind.
so what are the other reasons? other than greedy or bored? can't make the payments to allllll the ex-wives?
i'm curious why anyone would work when they don't have to? is it because you think that all your incredable experiance may save the day one day? or is it because you think the company can't go on without you? if you think that you should maybe visit the office on your day off and see. or maybe you do because you're bored. or do you miss the view from 35k as seen through your expensive bi-focals.
no, i know. its to pass on yet another "there i was" story about how much better things were back in the old days.
so, how come nobody has any comments about my solution?
seems reasonable to me. cards laid are cards played.
new players new rules.
and don't quote exceptions. just because bob hoover, at age 80 whatever can do barrel rolls, doesn't mean he's a benchmark.
its like saying smoking doesn't kill you because my grandfather lived to 100 and smoked everyday of his life.
we all know that the current medical ecg is a joke. if it was real and included a treadmill test, half the pilots in the country would drop dead after a hundred yards.
i know i would. i can barely chase my new, expensive, trophy wife around the bedroom without collapsing.
actually the way she spends money, i will need to keep working well into my hundreds just to pay for the viagra.
sucks to be me.
so what are the other reasons? other than greedy or bored? can't make the payments to allllll the ex-wives?
i'm curious why anyone would work when they don't have to? is it because you think that all your incredable experiance may save the day one day? or is it because you think the company can't go on without you? if you think that you should maybe visit the office on your day off and see. or maybe you do because you're bored. or do you miss the view from 35k as seen through your expensive bi-focals.
no, i know. its to pass on yet another "there i was" story about how much better things were back in the old days.
so, how come nobody has any comments about my solution?
seems reasonable to me. cards laid are cards played.
new players new rules.
and don't quote exceptions. just because bob hoover, at age 80 whatever can do barrel rolls, doesn't mean he's a benchmark.
its like saying smoking doesn't kill you because my grandfather lived to 100 and smoked everyday of his life.
we all know that the current medical ecg is a joke. if it was real and included a treadmill test, half the pilots in the country would drop dead after a hundred yards.
i know i would. i can barely chase my new, expensive, trophy wife around the bedroom without collapsing.
actually the way she spends money, i will need to keep working well into my hundreds just to pay for the viagra.
sucks to be me.
-
sidestick stirrer
- Rank 5

- Posts: 383
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:22 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Has anyone else noticed how reliably the " I can't wait to retire" crowd refer to their job as "work", yet the "FTYD" crowd calls it "flying"?
That alone might predict when a person would elect to retire...
That alone might predict when a person would elect to retire...
-
Morry Bund
- Rank 3

- Posts: 122
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:32 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Among other things, including another identity on this Forum. You didn't just sign up here for the first time today and you didn't make your alleged first post on this Forum today simply to taunt us with irreverent questions.rotaxdriver wrote:i know i have a closed mind.
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Here I thought this was all about age discrimination. So what you are saying is that Mr Vilven would have been fine being pushed out the door at age 65 but not at age 60? Anyone else find that extremely hypocritical? If you want to say that age 60 is discriminatory than you must agree that 65 is as well....Johnny Mapleleaf wrote:You can thank ACPA for that. It was because Jazz uses age 65 that George Vilven filed his original complaint.BLZD1 wrote:Jazz uses age 65 then you get the punt!! The age 60 guys want no age limit. So AC guys are not alone in this fight.
If ACPA had agreed to let him stay to age 65 when he originally asked them to help him oppose his termination of employment, there would have been no Tribunal hearing and no decision that the mandatory retirement exemption is entirely illegal. Be careful what you object to.
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Let's keep the posts in this thread relevant to this thread.
What is relevant: Your opinions regarding fly past 60.
What's NOT relevant: personal training records of the people involved in this issue.
Please keep this in mind going forward.
I have toasted a half-dozen recent posts which failed to keep this in mind. Next step is strikes, so let's all avoid that.
What is relevant: Your opinions regarding fly past 60.
What's NOT relevant: personal training records of the people involved in this issue.
Please keep this in mind going forward.
I have toasted a half-dozen recent posts which failed to keep this in mind. Next step is strikes, so let's all avoid that.
-
Johnny Mapleleaf
- Rank 3

- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:42 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
That is not what I was saying, at all. What I was saying is that if Air Canada and ACPA had let him continue working to age 65, the issue would not have arisen. In his original testimony he stated that the reason he filed the complaint was because he was sitting beside a Jazz pilot on a flight who told him that Jazz had abandoned the age 60 limit.bcflyer wrote:Here I thought this was all about age discrimination. So what you are saying is that Mr Vilven would have been fine being pushed out the door at age 65 but not at age 60? Anyone else find that extremely hypocritical? If you want to say that age 60 is discriminatory than you must agree that 65 is as well....
The issue of going beyond age 65 did not arise until the complaint was before the Tribunal in 2007, and even then it arose only because the Tribunal had no basis on which to impose any age restriction whatsoever, given the fact that it found the mandatory retirement exemption to be of no force and effect, and given the fact that Transport Canada imposed no age restriction on licensing.
As I said above, be careful what you object to. ACPA could have kept this contained to age 65 for a considerable period of time, had it taken a more open minded view of the whole issue.
But the most significant impact of this whole issue will be felt by Air Canada. It's decision to not contain it at age 65, and in particular, it's decision to judicially review the Tribunal's August 2009 Vilven-Kelly decision will result in it losing its ability to force any of its employees to terminate their employment at age 60 or age 65. From just 3,000 pilots affected to over 20,000 employees affected. Big impact.
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Neither ACPA or Air Canada have anything to brag about when it comes to their strategic thinking or problem solving skills. Their inept handling of this issue is making them (and by association us) look like clowns.
-
Norwegianwood
- Rank 4

- Posts: 291
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:16 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Bring on the clowns..... AC " How would you like to be a corespondent in this case?"
(kewl aid)
ACPA " Oh sure, why not!"
There say's it all......................
ACPA " Oh sure, why not!"
There say's it all......................
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Bill to end mandatory retirement losing steam
BY DON BUTLER, POSTMEDIA NEWS FEBRUARY 21, 2011 3:02 PM
OTTAWA — Call it the last stand of Freedom 65.
A bill that once seemed poised to sweep away legislated mandatory retirement in Canada is losing political steam following objections from Canadian businesses and labour organizations.
The private member’s bill, sponsored by Quebec Liberal MP Raymonde Folco, was unanimously approved at second reading last December.
“I had all parties on board with this,” Folco said in an interview. “They all felt that with minor amendments, which I agreed to, they could vote for the bill.”
But after committee hearings this month, she says, “that’s no longer where it is. I’m not sure that the government is still on board, and I’m not too sure the NDP is still on board.”
As a result, the bill’s prospects have gone from bright to bleak.
Though Folco is “not totally pessimistic,” with the possibility of a spring election begin called, the window for passage is rapidly closing.
Folco’s bill would repeal a section of the Canadian Human Rights Act that allows federally regulated employers to terminate employees who have reached “the normal age of retirement” for workers in similar positions.
All provinces and territorial governments have already repealed similar provisions in their own human-rights codes. For federal public servants, mandatory retirement was eliminated in 1986.
That leaves the federal government as “the last jurisdiction in Canada to hold onto legislated age discrimination,” says the Canadian Association of Retired Persons.
The human rights act’s provisions apply to 12,000 federally regulated businesses and industries employing 840,000 people who work for the Canadian Forces, Crown corporations and sectors such as banking, broadcasting, transportation, railway, telephone and marine shipping.
In practice, though, fewer than two per cent of those employers — including 10 per cent of those with 100 or more employees — have mandatory-retirement policies.
That hasn’t stopped the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and FETCO (Federally Regulated Employers — Transportation and Communications), which represents businesses employing 586,000 federally regulated workers, from raising a host of concerns about Folco’s bill.
John Farrell, FETCO’s executive director, told a parliamentary committee hearing that banning mandatory retirement would “remove an important mechanism that has been available to federal employers to manage some older workers with dignity with regard to diminishing performance resulting from advancing age.”
It will also affect the cost and functioning of pension plans, benefit programs and workers’ compensation insurance, Farrell said. Moreover, employers should be able to apply “reasonable mandatory retirement ages” in occupations where work is associated with a high risk to public safety, he argued.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce made similar points in an appearance before the committee this past week and asked for a two-year delay in implementing the proposed law.
Organized labour has also weighed in. New Democrat MP Tony Martin, a member of the committee studying the bill, said his party, “in partnership with the labour movement,” has concerns about the bill’s “unintended consequences.”
“We want to make sure that we understand the impact this might have, particularly on collective agreements and other pension schemes out there,” Martin said. “My big concern in all of this is that this is the thin edge of the wedge towards raising the age where people can qualify for Canada Pension and affecting other pension plans as well.”
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/B ... z1EeUfp9l2
BY DON BUTLER, POSTMEDIA NEWS FEBRUARY 21, 2011 3:02 PM
OTTAWA — Call it the last stand of Freedom 65.
A bill that once seemed poised to sweep away legislated mandatory retirement in Canada is losing political steam following objections from Canadian businesses and labour organizations.
The private member’s bill, sponsored by Quebec Liberal MP Raymonde Folco, was unanimously approved at second reading last December.
“I had all parties on board with this,” Folco said in an interview. “They all felt that with minor amendments, which I agreed to, they could vote for the bill.”
But after committee hearings this month, she says, “that’s no longer where it is. I’m not sure that the government is still on board, and I’m not too sure the NDP is still on board.”
As a result, the bill’s prospects have gone from bright to bleak.
Though Folco is “not totally pessimistic,” with the possibility of a spring election begin called, the window for passage is rapidly closing.
Folco’s bill would repeal a section of the Canadian Human Rights Act that allows federally regulated employers to terminate employees who have reached “the normal age of retirement” for workers in similar positions.
All provinces and territorial governments have already repealed similar provisions in their own human-rights codes. For federal public servants, mandatory retirement was eliminated in 1986.
That leaves the federal government as “the last jurisdiction in Canada to hold onto legislated age discrimination,” says the Canadian Association of Retired Persons.
The human rights act’s provisions apply to 12,000 federally regulated businesses and industries employing 840,000 people who work for the Canadian Forces, Crown corporations and sectors such as banking, broadcasting, transportation, railway, telephone and marine shipping.
In practice, though, fewer than two per cent of those employers — including 10 per cent of those with 100 or more employees — have mandatory-retirement policies.
That hasn’t stopped the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and FETCO (Federally Regulated Employers — Transportation and Communications), which represents businesses employing 586,000 federally regulated workers, from raising a host of concerns about Folco’s bill.
John Farrell, FETCO’s executive director, told a parliamentary committee hearing that banning mandatory retirement would “remove an important mechanism that has been available to federal employers to manage some older workers with dignity with regard to diminishing performance resulting from advancing age.”
It will also affect the cost and functioning of pension plans, benefit programs and workers’ compensation insurance, Farrell said. Moreover, employers should be able to apply “reasonable mandatory retirement ages” in occupations where work is associated with a high risk to public safety, he argued.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce made similar points in an appearance before the committee this past week and asked for a two-year delay in implementing the proposed law.
Organized labour has also weighed in. New Democrat MP Tony Martin, a member of the committee studying the bill, said his party, “in partnership with the labour movement,” has concerns about the bill’s “unintended consequences.”
“We want to make sure that we understand the impact this might have, particularly on collective agreements and other pension schemes out there,” Martin said. “My big concern in all of this is that this is the thin edge of the wedge towards raising the age where people can qualify for Canada Pension and affecting other pension plans as well.”
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/B ... z1EeUfp9l2
-
Norwegianwood
- Rank 4

- Posts: 291
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:16 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
BLZD1 wrote:Bill to end mandatory retirement losing steam
In practice, though, fewer than two per cent of those employers — including 10 per cent of those with 100 or more employees — have mandatory-retirement policies.
Feel the heat! You can't rule the world from such a narrow minded minority position
-
Mechanic787
- Rank 3

- Posts: 103
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:38 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
The newspaper article documents what is essentially one of the major limitations of a Private Member's Bill. Namely, that it doesn't take much to derail it. In this case, we have two interest groups at work, labour and employers. The labour interest is almost inconsequential, given the stated concerns, and given the precedent of the provincial government actions in this regard.
The real force here is the influence of the powerful employer lobby, as represented both by FETCO and by the Canadian Chambers of Commerce. Although both witnesses spoke in favour of the Bill, their real energy was expended in throwing up so many obstacles and flags that there was realistically no means of getting the Bill passed before the potential end of the Parliamentary session. All that was necessary to accomplish that was to have the whole issue spill over the 30 minutes allocated in the second meeting of the Committee for amendment and passage.
Right now, the Committee will meet again on March 8th to continue debate. Even though that is seriously problematic for getting the Bill back into Parliament for Third Reading and passage prior to the end of March, don't think that this initiative will fade away. The repeal may be delayed, but it is not going to be delayed for very long, even if this session of Parliament ends next month.
The real force here is the influence of the powerful employer lobby, as represented both by FETCO and by the Canadian Chambers of Commerce. Although both witnesses spoke in favour of the Bill, their real energy was expended in throwing up so many obstacles and flags that there was realistically no means of getting the Bill passed before the potential end of the Parliamentary session. All that was necessary to accomplish that was to have the whole issue spill over the 30 minutes allocated in the second meeting of the Committee for amendment and passage.
Right now, the Committee will meet again on March 8th to continue debate. Even though that is seriously problematic for getting the Bill back into Parliament for Third Reading and passage prior to the end of March, don't think that this initiative will fade away. The repeal may be delayed, but it is not going to be delayed for very long, even if this session of Parliament ends next month.
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
so... what does that mean? lets say the bill doesn't get passed does that mean that the guys just getting re instated can be forced to retire again? this is getting too confusing the only winners are lawyers



