Human Resources Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[Capt Paul Strachan]

I think that's patently incorrect, because every collective agreement that has ever been established between Air Canada and its pilots has been ratified by the pilots. I'm not sure where that flows from, whether or not it was initially instituted by fiat. You know our money is instituted by fiat. It forms part of a collective agreement and it gets ratified by the pilots. It's of great value to Air Canada. You have to remember that it takes a full 16 months for Air Canada to replace a retiring pilot.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Let's stick to the question.

[Capt Paul Strachan]

No, no, but there's a value—

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Let's stick to the question. Thank you.

[Capt Paul Strachan]

So there's a value for Air Canada in that, because they can plan—

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Are you cutting me off, or are you cutting him off?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Just let him finish.

Madam Beaudin.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for being here today, gentlemen.

Mr. Strachan, if I understand correctly, if I work for your organization for 40 years, I know exactly at what age I will be leaving, in other words, 65. That is when I will be required to leave.

[Capt Paul Strachan]

Sixty.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Sixty. Even worse.

You talked a lot about the generous pension plan, but I would think people have other reasons for wanting to work, as well. They may enjoy working, they may wish to realize their potential or they may want to earn a living. Not every company offers the same generous pension benefits you do. A situation that often comes to mind is that of a stay-at-home mom who, after raising her children, decides to embark on a second career and ends up being hired by an organization like yours much later in life. She already knows that she will have to leave that job at the age of 60. Nevertheless, she may still want to work past that age and may still have the skills to do so. Does the bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) not ensure that the employer can retain its employees, on the one hand? On the other hand, I do not think an employer could be required to keep an employee who did not meet the job requirements.

A bit earlier, Mr. Madower, you said that the armed forces needed skilled and healthy people. If a member of the military no longer meets the organization's requirements, the employer is not required to retain that employee. In my view, legislation already exists to that effect.

I am glad to be part of the workforce at a time when we are talking about changing the mandatory retirement age, because older people are increasingly healthy nowadays. So they can keep their jobs. What are the main reasons for keeping the mandatory retirement age? Pension plans? Career opportunities for the next generation? Are those the reasons? Does an employer not have to ensure that the person doing the job has the right skills for that job? Employers would do better to keep their employees and to leave it up to them to decide when to leave. It is basically society's choice to give people the freedom to decide. Yes, there are costs involved, but is it not worth it in the end?

I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

[Capt Paul Strachan]

Thank you, Madam Beaudin.

I have to go back to this. From where do we draw our mandate? From where do we formulate the position we adopt? It comes from the same people.

It is an interesting question. Is it discrimination if everybody is treated the same? Everybody in our organization will eventually come to the same fate. They'll be asked to take their pension at the time that we all agreed it would be done.

The pension doesn't exist in isolation, obviously. I try to make the connection between it and the collective agreement. It forms an integral part of the entire agreement that we have and our whole system of seniority and the rights and privileges that stem therefrom. So it's tremendously important to our organization.

You're quite right that not everybody has the same rights and benefits that we do. In fact, I can't think of anybody in Canada, certainly in our profession, who does. But that goes back to my comments on the broadness of this proposed legislation, that it is too broad, because not all situations are the same.

Mr. Komarnicki made reference to the fact that things are very rarely black and white. I would entirely agree with that, and I would say that the truth and the proper position for a parliament to take lies in some shade of grey.

So I caution the committee not to contemplate this bill in its current form, as it will have unintended consequences.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

The bill seeks to eliminate mandatory retirement and, in so doing, adheres to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But we could include an amendment giving employers one or perhaps two years to adopt the necessary measures to adjust their pension plans and what they offer employees. That is pretty clear to me.

[Capt Paul Strachan]

I would say if you included our proposed amendment, where you're protecting the bona fide pension plan, the situation such as our own, where there is a very generous, in fact bona fide, pension plan, especially where it's concomitant with a deferred wage scheme, a true deferred wage scheme such as the one that we've developed for ourselves, this is an appropriate place where an exception not be made. That's why we make the proposal for an amendment to specify those situations as an appropriate exemption, which puts it in keeping with a number of jurisdictions. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and the Northwest Territories, I believe, all have some form of exception, most robustly in New Brunswick, as has been noted. But all those jurisdictions agree that there are situations...and they all make reference to the same situation, where it is in the case of a bona fide retirement or pension plan, and perhaps benefits as well.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I just have one question, Mr. Strachan.

Not all of your pilots have the opportunity to enjoy long careers at Air Canada. People are hired at different ages. So pilots who join the organization later in life are not entitled to the same plan. They do not receive the same pension benefits others do.

[Capt Paul Strachan]

Yes, and it depends. In fact, even two of us starting at the same age may have very different pension expectations as well. I'm a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces, so I have almost 10 years of pensionable service in the Canadian Armed Forces, which I have been allowed to repurchase at Air Canada. So my pension expectations would be different from an individual who was not in that position.

We can't very well legislate the age at which Air Canada must hire a pilot. We all start at different ages. Age itself is not discriminatory; it happens to all of us. It's very difficult to put a finger on that. But these are terms and conditions of employment. One freely agrees that when they join Air Canada these are the terms that will govern.

It's interesting that certain members who have realized the full benefit of all those provisions that we've negotiated seek now, only at the ultimate moment, to change them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Martin, please.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you.

Do you belong to the CLC?

[Capt Paul Strachan]

No, we do not.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Do you belong to any of the umbrella labour organizations?

[Capt Paul Strachan]

The only affiliations we have internationally would be with other pilot organizations within the Star Alliance carriers.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Okay.

Have you had any conversations with any of the other labour groups out there about this?

[Capt Paul Strachan]

Bill, can you...?

[Bill Petrie]

We've had some discussions with the other unions at Air Canada. We've had some preliminary discussions with representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress, who have advised us that they understand the position we're taking. They understand the balancing of the individual rights with collective rights and the ability to be able to negotiate pension plans, and the ages of retirement for purposes of the pension plans.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

In your conversations within, did they have any blanket position that they presented?

[Capt Paul Strachan]

I don't think we'd be comfortable in taking a position on behalf of the CLC, Mr. Martin, thanks.