Evidence of meeting #43 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was employees.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Director and Senior Counsel, Litigation Services Division, Canadian Human Rights Commission
—and that's the benefit regulation.
12:50 p.m.
Director and Senior Counsel, Litigation Services Division, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Other than that, I couldn't say.
12:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO)
There are lots of recommendations. The railways have special regulations. The truckers have regulations.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Josée Beaudin Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. My question is for Mr. Farrell.
The bill aims to abolish the mandatory retirement age. I listened to your comments and your answers. You talk about management challenges for employers. At the beginning of your presentation, you talked about significant management challenges, about mechanisms, about ways of doing things, about solutions for the employer and about how programs will be treated.
Am I wrong in saying that you agree with the principle of abolishing mandatory retirement age? The issue is more with regard to finding ways to meet management challenges, right?
12:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO)
We agree with the principle of mandatory retirement. We want a law such that when workplaces have to change the way work is performed, how employees are moved through an organization, and how employers are compelled to look at health and safety issues, we have the flexibility to do that in a reasonable way. We don't want to get tied down to simplistic legislation that could cause us problems.
Mr. Justice La Forest, who was brought up in this conversation today, has stated at the outset that these are complex matters and they require thoughtful solutions.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Josée Beaudin Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Okay, thank you very much.
Earlier, you also talked about the issue involving severance pay, which must be regulated by legislation if people decide to leave their employment at the age of 65, 67 or 70. Is severance pay not already prescribed by collective agreements, even in the case of employees who decide to leave their job at the age of 59?
12:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO)
Yes. There are a variety of ways in which severance pay is provided. There are some minimum standards that exist in the Canada Labour Code. Employers negotiate and provide severance arrangements for their employees through collective bargaining. Sometimes they provide severance payments voluntarily. Under common law, employees who believe they've been unfairly treated have the option to advance their rights in the court. So there are all kinds of ways in which Canadians can address severance pay.
Our only problem is that the language in this proposed legislation is not as clear as it probably could be on this matter. We just want to make sure it's explicit language.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Josée Beaudin Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
So, there could be a bona fide occupational requirement, a BFOR, as was mentioned by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. We agree that there should not necessarily be a mandatory retirement age. I realize that this will be a lot of work, but we need to decide how to proceed and we need to ensure that employers have all the tools they need for a good relationship with employees or unions. When it comes to the key issue of mandatory retirement age, we agree. What we need to do is set exceptions, outline the requirements and make employees pass tests, if necessary. So, there are no issues with that.
12:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO)
It sounds as if we agree, then.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
You have just a brief three minutes, Ms. Block. Do you have a question?
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. I've really appreciated the discussion we've had. And as you've stated, Mr. Farrell, taking the time to have a full and thorough conversation and taking into consideration all the factors that we need to in looking at this private member's bill I think is a good idea.
Mr. Langtry, I want to give you an opportunity to expand on one of the statements you made in your opening remarks. We touched on it a little bit. But it's this comment specifically:
Turning 65, or any other age, does not make someone less qualified to work. In our view, the qualifications of the person measured against the requirements of a job should be the relevant criteria....
Would you expand on that in terms of how an organization would go about ensuring that's the case?
12:55 p.m.
Acting Chief Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
There are many times during the course of a person's employment when, for reasons not related to age, they are no longer fully able to perform their services. I'll use the example of somebody who is a bus driver. Of course, you'd have to have good vision. Over the course of time, somebody might lose their vision, and although they would no longer be qualified, that would have nothing to do with how old they were but would be because of that. You're not able to accommodate somebody who is sightless being a bus driver, to put it very simply.
Many of the cases that do come before us are situations in which an employer says an employee is no longer qualified. I'm talking about cases other than the mandatory retirement ones in which they would then have independent medical assessments or that kind of thing. We heard earlier that in the airline industry, testing and so on is done frequently. At the commission we recognize that especially in safety-sensitive positions there is testing that can rightfully be administered. I'll use a mandatory drug and alcohol testing policy, for example. For safety-sensitive positions it is certainly permissible to do that.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
I would like to thank the witnesses for being here and for being part of our discussion on this bill.
I want to remind the committee members that we will be continuing to look at this bill next week, on Tuesday. If you have amendments and you are willing to share them with us, it would be good to get them to the clerk as soon as possible. I want to remind everyone of that, because we're hoping to look at this bill clause by clause at the end of Tuesday's meeting, probably during the last half-hour.
Yes, Madam Folco.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
We're still finalizing it. We're hoping to have three for the first 45 minutes and three for another 45 minutes.
And I think you possibly want to speak?
1 p.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
No. I just felt that given the number of witnesses, I wanted to give the witnesses the maximum time, so I will not be participating in that part of it.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
All right.
We're still finalizing the list of witnesses, and you'll have it as soon as it is finalized.
Thank you, everyone.
The meeting is adjourned.
