Human Resources Committee on March 8th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

No, it's not debatable.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

It's not debatable?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

No. You've moved the motion to table this particular bill, so the clause-by-clause....

No, it's not debatable.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

So the motion is not debatable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

This is not a debatable motion.

The motion is that the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-481 be postponed. It's non-debatable.

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Sorry, Mr. Komarnicki, your motion did not carry.

We will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

(On clause 2)

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair.

As the originator of this bill, I would like to withdraw the amendment that said that clause 2 of Bill C-481 should be amended by repealing paragraph 15(1)(c) of the act. I will just withdraw it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

What you're actually saying is you're not going to move it. You hadn't moved it, and you're not going to. In that case, we don't need to look at any amendment on clause 2.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(On clause 3)

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Shall clause 3 carry? All those in favour--I'm sorry; I didn't give enough time.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Are we able to raise it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Yes, you could debate it. We are on clause 3.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Is that the coming-into-force provision?

No, it's the Canada Labour Code.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

That will be an amendment as we move forward.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I would like to stress something. I know my colleague Tony Martin raised some reservations about the bill, particularly as it applied to the collective bargaining agreements that may have been signed by various members, including the pilots association. To have the bill go forward without the amendments that we initially agreed upon, without regard to what all of the other witnesses said, and without regard to some of the amendments they proposed is a matter of concern.

I would urge Mr. Martin to consider not supporting this bill and having it go forth to the House without the amendments that were previously agreed to and without any consideration for the amendments proposed by some of the witnesses, such as the Chamber of Commerce, FEDCO, and Air Canada Pilots Association. These are people who have raised some good points.

As a matter of due diligence, it would seem that this bill should not go forward in its present form. Even stripped of the amendments that had previously been agreed to, it seems to be doing a disservice to this committee and to the people who testified before us. Why else would you have people appear before this committee and say—

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Is there a point of order?

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

Yes; I think Mr. Komarnicki has made his point, and I would like him not to debate it. This is not the time and place for it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I'm sorry, but that's not a point of order. He is allowed to speak on this clause.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I haven't quite finished the debate.

As a committee we have a responsibility to exercise due diligence. Due diligence requires that you take into account everything you had before you when you started the meeting, and you take into account the things that have been presented to you. The question is this: was there any reasonableness to the positions they took? Was there any basis to what they said?

By any reasonable standard, you would have to say all of them raised fair points that we hadn't previously taken into consideration. In fairness, they've raised some significant points regarding the impact this would have on previously negotiated agreements, on existing plans and benefits. They've raised some fair points.

Whether we in the end decide to accept those or not remains to be seen. If you can say that you've done your due diligence, that you've looked at the issues they've raised, and that you're satisfied that they have no merit, then I'm okay with that, but in fairness to yourself, your parties, your constituents, or your stakeholders, I don't think you can say that. You can't, and if you can't say it, why are you proceeding with this bill? What's the motivation? It can't be the best interests of those you represent. It cannot be.

I would urge you to think twice about proceeding not just with this clause, but with the entire bill. It should not go forward to the House and get reported without the amendments we agreed to and without consideration of those that were proposed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Lessard, did you say that you wanted to speak on this as well? I wasn't quite sure if that was your intention.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to reassure our Conservative colleague, this measure has been in force in Quebec for over two decades, and in fact almost three, that is since 1982.

The questions raised by our colleague Mr. Komarnicki are not an issue, for the following reasons. Whether a person is 68 years old, or 38 years old, if that person cannot do the work, then the employer will let him go. If you can no longer do the job that you were hired to do, the employer will move you out of that job, whether you're 38 or 68 years old.

The same applies in the case of persons deployed to the front. We have heard testimony from members of the military who were concerned about older soldiers being deployed to the front. We have to remember that people seated around the table are not incapable of understanding the issues. No army is going to send a 65-year-old or someone older to the front. Even 50-year-olds are not sent into battle today. The argument is therefore not relevant, Madam Chair.

We also need to look at what happens to a person's pension. Consider a group pension plan to which both the employer and employee contribute. Whether the employee is 40 years old, or 65 years old, the employer will continue to contribute to the plan for as long as the employee is able to work and to make contributions. The employee will not begin to receive benefits until he retires, whether that happens at 67, 68 or 70 years of age.

That is the current rule, Madam Chair. I worked in labour relations for over 40 years, so I can tell you that this is how things work and how pension plan provisions work. In the case of some plans, people who start working at a very young age can retire at the age of 55. In other cases, retirement is possible at 60 or 65 years of age. Each plan has its own rules. We're probably going to be adding a provision to pension plans that will merely extend the number of years already prescribed in the plan.

For these reasons, I think colleagues' concerns are unfounded. Quebec has had some experience with this measure and I can say that none of the concerns raised by our colleagues has proved to be a problem. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Furthermore, Madam Chair, adopting this bill today would be a symbolic move. We believe the bill will improve the lives of women who are forced into retirement at 65, even if they are still capable of working and could end up at home living on a less-than-satisfactory income. The bill represents an anti-poverty measure for older people. I think it would be highly symbolic if we were to adopt the bill today. It is an excellent initiative, one that constitutes a modest anti-poverty measure.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

Go ahead, Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

No doubt it is symbolic, but it's more than that. No one is suggesting for a moment that mandatory retirement, as we now know it, needs to remain. In fact, we're on record as saying it needs to go, but it needs to go in a reasoned and logical way. There will be steps taken to make it happen, but the witnesses who appeared before us said that there are some legitimate things we haven't considered in removing mandatory retirement ages, things that provinces have exempted. In the provinces where they've put it forward, they've said they've done it for a reason, because it has consequences. New Brunswick, in particular, has a specific section.

The Air Canada Pilots Association testified before us, and Mr. Martin asked a very particular question that hit the nail on the head. He asked what it is going to do to upward mobility for the younger people in his riding who are pilots or want to be. What it's going to do if we proceed with what we're doing here today is prevent them from going up the chain. If he's going on the record for his constituents and his people that he doesn't care about that--he's heard what they had to say, and it's a legitimate concern, and we haven't taken the time to make an amendment to allow for that to happen--then that's his business, but I think he's not doing what he needs to do.

Second, these young people in his riding who are air pilots have invested their time and efforts on a pre-agreed understood collective bargaining agreement in which perhaps 90% of those who are part of the collective bargaining agreement have said that these are the rules of the game they're going to play by. They're going to be sure that they open up spots so that when you are 60, you will leave, and a young person will progress upward. They have said that they all agree to that and that they also agree that the top echelon of the pilots will be receiving especially good pay and pensions and benefits because they are leaving early.

There are a few who wish to continue after the fact, but they were parties to an agreement that set those rights and they're saying.... The president of the union or association has said that they have voted on this agreement. They all agreed when they started the game that this was how they were going to play it; now you, as Parliament, are going to change those rules, and they're saying you shouldn't do it. You should make some exception.

The labour movement--the unions and the associations--should have the right to bargain for what they feel is right, and that should be accepted.

If Mr. Martin says he doesn't care about that, fair enough, but I'm saying he should care about it. We should care about that. We should give them the respect to look at potential amendments that may address their situation or else say that we've looked at it and we don't agree with you. We haven't done that, and for that reason we can't support this section and we can't support this bill at this time.

That's not saying that at the end of the day we would come up with the same product with the same exceptions, but we'd have given them due consideration. We've done our due diligence. We had legal people look at it and say that this is how you might do it. This is how New Brunswick has done it. This is how Saskatchewan and the other provinces have done it. This is the way you can do it. It still enforces and reinforces the principles of taking away the effects of mandatory retirement while allowing the parties to bargain in good faith and putting good consideration--which includes work time, which includes years under lower pay and lower salaries--to do that if they want to.

For those reasons, I would caution us about proceeding in the fashion we're proposing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Go ahead, Madam Folco.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First I must say that I am surprised to hear Mr. Komarnicki telling us, as a Conservative, that he supports the labour unions. This must be the first time in history that I have heard someone from the opposite side telling me that the Conservatives support labour unions.

Second, he has referred on several occasions to what the witnesses have said, but I notice that the only witnesses he has referred to were witnesses who represented the employers' side of things. They have their full rights to say what they have to say, but I think that when you're going to argue in a debate, you must also bring out what the opposite side has had to say. What the opposite side has said to us, and what I've read also in much of the research I have done in order to present this bill, is that there is a lot of space for young people. We're talking about Air Canada and the airline companies here. There is a lot of space for these people to go up the career ladder. The opposite is not true. There is a lot of space for them.

Third, it is our role as parliamentarians to look at laws and to make sure that these laws correspond to what is happening socially in our country and what is happening with the physical health of people over 60 years of age. I won't go through all this; you've heard all the witnesses and you've read things. There's so much in the newspapers about it. Most people these days are physically fit way past the age of 60.

Collective agreements are important. They're fundamental. However, collective agreements must change with time in order to correspond to what employers and employees want. I remind the members of this committee that the employees have made this clear. I've talked to people representing the airline employees and the people who went against the collective agreement and won their cause, both in court and in the human rights tribunal. They are clear on this.

Fourth, Mr. Komarnicki supports this bill, but not “at this time”. I'm quoting: “at this time”. This reminds me of what all the employers' witnesses said to us, namely, “We're all for this bill, but just not for us”. This is what we heard: “just not for us”. Well, the bill is for everyone. It's for an understanding between employers and employees.

Finally, this bill was presented several weeks ago. I had discussions with Mr. Komarnicki on this bill a long time ago, so it isn't as if this bill came as a surprise. When the government side wants to push a bill through quickly, they know how to do it. They're extremely good strategists. We all know this. If a bill is being—how shall I say?—slowed down here, it's not in order to get the cabinet to discuss it further. It's simply to slow it down and have it die. This is why I feel that this bill must go through and must be accepted by our committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you, Madam Folco.

Monsieur Lessard, you had something else you wished to add?