Mandatory Retirement Repeal Bill Passes Second Reading
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mandatory Retirement Repeal Bill Passes Second Reading
From the AvCanada Forum this morning:
The House of Commons this morning unanimously passed Second Reading of Bill C-481, the bill that will repeal the mandatory retirement exemption under Section 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Bill was supported by all parties, including the government. The Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Justice, in debate, stated that the government, with two qualifications, unequivocally supports passage of the Bill. The qualifications are to be dealt with in Committee, via amendment.
From here the Bill goes to a Parliamentary Committee for review and amendment. The two amendments contemplated are as follows. The first one is a transition provision that will allow a short time period, likely six months, from the date of the enactment of the legislation until the date that the legislation comes into force. The second one has to do with the Canadian military.
When the law takes effect, likely in the summer of 2011, the repeal of the mandatory retirement provision will affect approximately 12,000 organizations in the federal sector that employ over 840,000 employees in the transportation, telecommunications and finance industries.
Parliamentary Committee hearings are being scheduled for mid-January.
The House of Commons this morning unanimously passed Second Reading of Bill C-481, the bill that will repeal the mandatory retirement exemption under Section 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Bill was supported by all parties, including the government. The Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Justice, in debate, stated that the government, with two qualifications, unequivocally supports passage of the Bill. The qualifications are to be dealt with in Committee, via amendment.
From here the Bill goes to a Parliamentary Committee for review and amendment. The two amendments contemplated are as follows. The first one is a transition provision that will allow a short time period, likely six months, from the date of the enactment of the legislation until the date that the legislation comes into force. The second one has to do with the Canadian military.
When the law takes effect, likely in the summer of 2011, the repeal of the mandatory retirement provision will affect approximately 12,000 organizations in the federal sector that employ over 840,000 employees in the transportation, telecommunications and finance industries.
Parliamentary Committee hearings are being scheduled for mid-January.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't there talk of a Spring election? Would this kill the bill again?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by "a330pilotcanada
Yes any Bill in first, second or third reading will die when the election writ is dropped.
It is in the Second Reading phase until it comes back on the floor at Third Reading for the vote to pass it into law. Although debate is allowed at Third Reading, debate at that point is usually short, if there is any at all, unless one of the parties truly opposes the legislation, which is not the case here.
So when this Bill goes back for Third Reading, it should simply be presented and voted on, given the fact that all parties have already indicated their support of the Bill and that the wrinkles in it are to be ironed out in Committee.
As of last month, the Committee hearings on Bill C-481 were set to be held on one day only in December, prior to the recess that occurs on December 17th, but other legislative agenda items delayed the Second Reading a couple of weeks to make the December Committee hearing dates impracticable. The plan now is for the Committee to meet for one day only shortly after Parliament resumes on January 29th to hear invited witnesses and to move the two planned amendments, following which it will go directly back to Parliament for Third Reading and passage into law. From there it will go to the Senate, where a similar vote is expected to happen in short order.
The only probability of this agenda getting derailed by a Spring election would occur if the Bill does not get back to Parliament for Third Reading prior to the vote on the Budget, expected in March. That is the only likely event to risk triggering a Spring election.
But even if that happens, given the previous all-party support for this Bill, it would likely be reintroduced in the next session and receive an even more rapid move through the House.
Feb 15
Pilots' mandatory retirement up in the air after court ruling
"...the judge set aside that part of the tribunal's decision and ordered it to re-determine, based on all the evidence, whether Air Canada has established that age is a bona-fide occupational requirement for its pilots. If the answer is yes, that could validate Air Canada's mandatory retirement policy."
Pilots' mandatory retirement up in the air after court ruling
Pilots' mandatory retirement up in the air after court ruling
"...the judge set aside that part of the tribunal's decision and ordered it to re-determine, based on all the evidence, whether Air Canada has established that age is a bona-fide occupational requirement for its pilots. If the answer is yes, that could validate Air Canada's mandatory retirement policy."
Pilots' mandatory retirement up in the air after court ruling
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical media treatment. Focus on a very, very minor aspect of the case and miss the key element. The referall to the Tribunal is a total non-issue, for a number of reasons.
The critical part of the Court decision was that the mandatory retirement exemption was found to be unconstitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court of Canada precedent to the contrary. Big move. Awesome implications.
The times, they are a changin'.
The critical part of the Court decision was that the mandatory retirement exemption was found to be unconstitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court of Canada precedent to the contrary. Big move. Awesome implications.
The times, they are a changin'.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This hardley looks like the "media getting it wrong", more like others got it wrong and failed to take into acount all the implications of the decision. In the mean time the legal eagles will have a field day with this , job security at its best!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2010
Location: YVR
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very good, honest, explanation, From "Understated" on the AVCANADA.CA forum:
This is a good explanation, as to what is happening with the Federal Bill, and the CHRT issues. They are different, in time lines. The end results, SHOULD BE the same. Only time will tell.
Quote:
You don't have to be a lawyer, but it helps to have a road map.
Mandatory retirement, in the federal jurisdiction, historically existed under the statute as an "exemption" to the general prohibition against age discrimination. There are two challenges to that "exemption." The first, through the Tribunal and the courts, is to have the exemption declared "of no force and effect" or "unconstitutional." That determination, when found, is effective upon the date of the Tribunal or the courts' deterimination, and applies to the cases before the court for terminations of employment that have already taken place.
All of the current complainants before the Tribunal meet or will meet this test, when their cases come forward for hearing, so all are potentially able to be reinstated.
The second challenge is to have the exemption repealed. That is what this Bill proposes. It will become law only after passage through Parliament and the Senate, on a date specified as "the date of coming into force." We are at least a year away from the repeal coming into force, so the earliest that it will take effect is in 2012, but it will potentially apply to all 800,000 employees in the federal jurisdiction, including all employees of Air Canada.
The Tribunal and court challenges are retrospective (they apply to the past cases, on a case-by-case basis). Repeal is prospective (it applies to all potential termination of employment after the date that the law comes into force).
End quote.
This is a good explanation, as to what is happening with the Federal Bill, and the CHRT issues. They are different, in time lines. The end results, SHOULD BE the same. Only time will tell.
Quote:
You don't have to be a lawyer, but it helps to have a road map.
Mandatory retirement, in the federal jurisdiction, historically existed under the statute as an "exemption" to the general prohibition against age discrimination. There are two challenges to that "exemption." The first, through the Tribunal and the courts, is to have the exemption declared "of no force and effect" or "unconstitutional." That determination, when found, is effective upon the date of the Tribunal or the courts' deterimination, and applies to the cases before the court for terminations of employment that have already taken place.
All of the current complainants before the Tribunal meet or will meet this test, when their cases come forward for hearing, so all are potentially able to be reinstated.
The second challenge is to have the exemption repealed. That is what this Bill proposes. It will become law only after passage through Parliament and the Senate, on a date specified as "the date of coming into force." We are at least a year away from the repeal coming into force, so the earliest that it will take effect is in 2012, but it will potentially apply to all 800,000 employees in the federal jurisdiction, including all employees of Air Canada.
The Tribunal and court challenges are retrospective (they apply to the past cases, on a case-by-case basis). Repeal is prospective (it applies to all potential termination of employment after the date that the law comes into force).
End quote.
