Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's proposals, in the 'phony budget', as Globe and Mail Editorial calls it ( March 23, 2011), 'now highly unlikely ever to be enacted' had, in part, proposed elimination of the mandatory retirement age.
Bill C-481 passed Committee review and amendment on March 8, and was referred by the Committee back to Parliament for Third Reading and passage into law.
With the possibility of a call for an election, as the opposition is not likely to support the Budget, the proposal in the Budget to eliminate mandatory retirement age will not go further.
The Bill, which would have gone for Third Reading, would die with the termination of the entire session of Parliament.
Raymonde Folco, Liberal MP, who had introduced the Bill, had clarified this in February 2011, in her remarks to this project's co-ordinator. She hoped that the "Third Reading debate and passage will be completed before there (is) an election or Parliament is prorogued for any other reason. As you observed, if this occurs, the Bill, along with any other legislation being discussed in Parliament will no longer exist."
There is need to continue mobilising support for ending the mandatory retirement age not only after the new government takes over in the next Parliament, but also during the campaign to emphasise to the candidates that they must support this measure when the Bill is re-introduced or the Budget is introduced.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Budget proposes to end mandatory retirement
March 22, 2011
Presenting the Budget in Parliament today, Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty promised amendments to eliminate the mandatory retirement age in federally regulated areas, such as banking, telecommunications, railways, and airlines, “unless there is a bona fide occupational requirement” for an age limit on a workforce.
Canadians employed in such federally regulated sectors as banking, transportation and telecommunications will be able to stay in the workforce longer regardless of collective agreements that stipulate a forced retirement age.
Only one exception to the mandatory retirement age will be maintained: a security and safety exemption that ensures commercial pilots, for example, can't fly into their 90s, a federal financial official said.
OTTAWA — Freedom 75? 80?
The federal government is ready to do away with mandatory retirement at age 65 in federally regulated industries.
The budget says the government will bring in legislation to change the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code to prohibit mandatory retirement unless there's a real occupational requirement.
"This would allow Canadians to choose how long they wish to remain active in the labour force," the budget documents say.
A private member's bill which would do much the same thing has been slowly making its way through the legislative process.
Court decisions have upheld retirement laws in some industries, citing operational needs.
The budget papers say people are living longer, more active lives than ever.
"Those who wish to remain active in the labour force should be able to do so for as long as they desire, enriching the workplace with their accumulated knowledge and experience."
Courtesy: The Canadian Press
Presenting the Budget in Parliament today, Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty promised amendments to eliminate the mandatory retirement age in federally regulated areas, such as banking, telecommunications, railways, and airlines, “unless there is a bona fide occupational requirement” for an age limit on a workforce.
Canadians employed in such federally regulated sectors as banking, transportation and telecommunications will be able to stay in the workforce longer regardless of collective agreements that stipulate a forced retirement age.
Only one exception to the mandatory retirement age will be maintained: a security and safety exemption that ensures commercial pilots, for example, can't fly into their 90s, a federal financial official said.
OTTAWA — Freedom 75? 80?
The federal government is ready to do away with mandatory retirement at age 65 in federally regulated industries.
The budget says the government will bring in legislation to change the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code to prohibit mandatory retirement unless there's a real occupational requirement.
"This would allow Canadians to choose how long they wish to remain active in the labour force," the budget documents say.
A private member's bill which would do much the same thing has been slowly making its way through the legislative process.
Court decisions have upheld retirement laws in some industries, citing operational needs.
The budget papers say people are living longer, more active lives than ever.
"Those who wish to remain active in the labour force should be able to do so for as long as they desire, enriching the workplace with their accumulated knowledge and experience."
Courtesy: The Canadian Press
Parliamentary Committee Passes Bill C-481 With Two Expected Amendments
March 8th, 2011
Bill C-481 passed Committee review and amendment today, and was referred by the Committee back to Parliament for Third Reading and passage into law. The Bill included two amendments. The first amendment allowed for an exemption of the Canadian Forces to the repeal of mandatory retirement. The second amendment allowed for a one year period from the enactment of the Bill until the coming into force of the Bill.
This event marks an extremely significant event, for not only was the Bill passed by the Committee and referred back to Parliament, it was passed in spite of an intense lobby, primarily by employers, to delay or kill the effect of the Bill upon any organization that provided its employees with a pension plan or pension scheme. The lobby failed on two counts, first to table the Bill pending further study of proposals by employer. Second, to defeat the passage of the amendments to the Bill and the referral of the Bill back to Parliament.
Referall of the Bill to Parliament at this point obviously does not guarantee passage into law. In addition to potential procedural delays prior to Third Reading, there is of course the prospect that the entire session of Parliament could be terminated with the call of an election. Be that as it may be, the referral to Parliament constitutes an immense step forward in the legislative process, and sets the stage for repeal of mandatory retirement in the federal jurisdiction, regardless of the continuance of this session of Parliament.
Bill C-481 passed Committee review and amendment today, and was referred by the Committee back to Parliament for Third Reading and passage into law. The Bill included two amendments. The first amendment allowed for an exemption of the Canadian Forces to the repeal of mandatory retirement. The second amendment allowed for a one year period from the enactment of the Bill until the coming into force of the Bill.
This event marks an extremely significant event, for not only was the Bill passed by the Committee and referred back to Parliament, it was passed in spite of an intense lobby, primarily by employers, to delay or kill the effect of the Bill upon any organization that provided its employees with a pension plan or pension scheme. The lobby failed on two counts, first to table the Bill pending further study of proposals by employer. Second, to defeat the passage of the amendments to the Bill and the referral of the Bill back to Parliament.
Referall of the Bill to Parliament at this point obviously does not guarantee passage into law. In addition to potential procedural delays prior to Third Reading, there is of course the prospect that the entire session of Parliament could be terminated with the call of an election. Be that as it may be, the referral to Parliament constitutes an immense step forward in the legislative process, and sets the stage for repeal of mandatory retirement in the federal jurisdiction, regardless of the continuance of this session of Parliament.
Federal Court Decison and Bill C-481 Hearings
Standing Committee Hearing, March 8, 2011 (mp3)
Saturday, February 19th, 2011 - In -camera Hearings
The Parliamentary Committee reviewing Bill C-481 held a very short in-camera session on the morning of February 17th for the purpose of setting down a date for the remaining deliberation of Bill C-481. The Committee set the date of Thursday, March 8th. There apparently was no substantive discussion of the issues related to the Bill at Thursday's meeting.
Standing Committee Hearing, February 15, 2011 (mp3):
The Parliamentary Committee reviewing Bill C-481 heard from several six witnesses today, including representatives from ACPA. As it turns out, the sparse 30 minutes for debate and amendment to the Bill was wholly insufficient to deal with issues raised in the testimony, including the proposed amendments. The Committee will meet again this Thursday, at 10:30 Eastern, to deal with a motion to table the proceedings and to reconvene at a later date, when testimony is available from witnesses to deal with a possible amendment to exempt employees of organizations that have bona fide pension plans from the entire scope of the general prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age. The likely date for the continuance of evidence appears to be March 3rd.
Standing Committee Hearing, February 10, 2011 (mp3):
The Parliamentary Committee reviewing Bill C-481 heard from several witnesses today, including George Vilven, Neil Kelly and our expert witness, Professor Jonathan Kesselment. Other witnesses included personnel from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and a representative of employer organizations in the federal transportation and communications industries. All witnesses spoke in favour of the Bill, namely, repealing mandatory retirement in the federal jurisdiction.
Federal Court Judicial Review Decision, February 3, 2011 :
The Federal Court released its decision in the 2010 judicial review of the August, 2009 Tribunal Vilven-Kelly liability decision. The Court dismissed Air Canada's and ACPA's application for judicial review of the Tribunal's Charter decision, but upheld the judicial review of the Tribunal's BFOR decision, in part, remitting the decision back to the Tribunal for reconsideration on the record. It should be noted that the BFOR decision, once re-decided, will affect Mssrs. Vilven and Kelly only, wherease the Court's decision on the Charter issue is now binding upon the Tribunal for all other Air Canada pilot mandatory retirement cases. This decision should expedite the remaining hearings before the Tribunal, but is very, very likely to be appealed by either or both Air Canada and ACPA, to the Federal Court of Appeal.
Courtesy: FlyPast60.com
Low-income seniors threatened by changes to federal income support
Why there should be an option to work for those facing Forced Retirement?
The article was published Nov. 25, 2010, The Globe and Mail
Low-income Canadian seniors could be driven into poverty next summer when they find out Ottawa has cut their federal income support.
Some are poised to lose a key part of their monthly income because of a new policy approved by the federal government without public notice, according to internal guidelines obtained by The Globe and Mail.
The rules change the way lump-sum withdrawals from Registered Retirement Income Funds affect Guaranteed Income Supplement payments.
Low-income seniors across the country will be affected if they withdraw more than the minimum allowed from their RRIF – which is what a Registered Retirement Savings Plan becomes in retirement. For example, if a senior with an income of $13,000 withdraws $5,000 from an RRIF to make a one-off expenditure, whether to pay for an uninsured health treatment or a family member’s funeral, the new policy would treat his or her income for that year as $18,000. That would place them above the $15,815.99 threshold for receiving GIS payments, which are meant to ease the financial burden of low-income seniors. In the past, seniors could have their GIS eligibility calculated based on projected income, which did not take into account large RRIF withdrawals.
The issue is of particular importance in Newfoundland and Labrador, where failing to qualify for GIS could mean the loss of prescription drug coverage.
“I think it’s immoral,” said Gerard Lee, who worked on benefits files for the federal government as a Service Canada client services officer in Corner Brook, Nfld., before retiring this year. Mr. Lee wrote to Human Resources Minister Diane Finley in August saying it was “grossly unfair” of the government to make the change without any public notice or effort to inform seniors.
In a written response last month, Ms. Finley defended the change and said the courts had urged Ottawa to clear up the rules in this area. Yet Ms. Finley’s office had more to say Thursday when informed The Globe would be writing a story on the issue.
“The Minister has instructed the department to urgently review this policy,” said Ryan Sparrow, Ms. Finley’s director of communications. Mr. Lee later said the minister’s pledge was “excellent” news.
The issue is surfacing as new data show the number of Canadian seniors living in poverty jumped nearly 25 per cent between 2007 and 2008, to 250,000 from 204,000, according to Campaign 2000.
Many Canadians use RRSPs to support their income in retirement, when the funds must be turned into RRIFs no later than the year they turn 71. However, the new rules now in effect mean that seniors who tap into their RRIFs for additional withdrawals beyond the minimum payment – for whatever reason – will now have that withdrawal counted as income for GIS purposes.
GIS payments can range from just 40 cents a month to $658.40 a month, depending on income. These amounts are in addition to Old Age Security payments.
In the past, such RRIF withdrawals were only counted as income for tax purposes, while a special provision allowed seniors to have GIS calculated based on their projected income, rather than last year’s income. That option was revoked in May without any public notice.
That means low-income seniors could find out in July, 2011 – when the next round of GIS payments are allotted – that their 2010 income was too high for them to qualify.
“People won’t find out until July 1, 2011, that they’ve just screwed themselves,” said Newfoundland Liberal MP Gerry Byrne, who raised the issue in the House of Commons Thursday. “They’re going to be shocked.”
Pam Hyatt, a 74-year-old actress in Toronto, said the changes seem unduly harsh.
“That’s really cruel,” said Ms. Hyatt, who qualified for the GIS last year after earning a taxable net income of $9,000. “If they’ve got an emergency like a funeral or an operation not covered by provincial insurance they should be able to pull some money out of their RRIFs in order to help themselves or their family.”
Many artists over 55 are, like Ms. Hyatt, living in straitened circumstances. New research by the Senior Artists’ Research Project found 35 per cent of elderly artists have annual incomes of less than $20,000.
Ms. Hyatt has worked for more than 52 years, and plans to continue working as long as she is able. “It’s a miracle I’m still here,” she said, laughing.
The article was published Nov. 25, 2010, The Globe and Mail
Low-income Canadian seniors could be driven into poverty next summer when they find out Ottawa has cut their federal income support.
Some are poised to lose a key part of their monthly income because of a new policy approved by the federal government without public notice, according to internal guidelines obtained by The Globe and Mail.
The rules change the way lump-sum withdrawals from Registered Retirement Income Funds affect Guaranteed Income Supplement payments.
Low-income seniors across the country will be affected if they withdraw more than the minimum allowed from their RRIF – which is what a Registered Retirement Savings Plan becomes in retirement. For example, if a senior with an income of $13,000 withdraws $5,000 from an RRIF to make a one-off expenditure, whether to pay for an uninsured health treatment or a family member’s funeral, the new policy would treat his or her income for that year as $18,000. That would place them above the $15,815.99 threshold for receiving GIS payments, which are meant to ease the financial burden of low-income seniors. In the past, seniors could have their GIS eligibility calculated based on projected income, which did not take into account large RRIF withdrawals.
The issue is of particular importance in Newfoundland and Labrador, where failing to qualify for GIS could mean the loss of prescription drug coverage.
“I think it’s immoral,” said Gerard Lee, who worked on benefits files for the federal government as a Service Canada client services officer in Corner Brook, Nfld., before retiring this year. Mr. Lee wrote to Human Resources Minister Diane Finley in August saying it was “grossly unfair” of the government to make the change without any public notice or effort to inform seniors.
In a written response last month, Ms. Finley defended the change and said the courts had urged Ottawa to clear up the rules in this area. Yet Ms. Finley’s office had more to say Thursday when informed The Globe would be writing a story on the issue.
“The Minister has instructed the department to urgently review this policy,” said Ryan Sparrow, Ms. Finley’s director of communications. Mr. Lee later said the minister’s pledge was “excellent” news.
The issue is surfacing as new data show the number of Canadian seniors living in poverty jumped nearly 25 per cent between 2007 and 2008, to 250,000 from 204,000, according to Campaign 2000.
Many Canadians use RRSPs to support their income in retirement, when the funds must be turned into RRIFs no later than the year they turn 71. However, the new rules now in effect mean that seniors who tap into their RRIFs for additional withdrawals beyond the minimum payment – for whatever reason – will now have that withdrawal counted as income for GIS purposes.
GIS payments can range from just 40 cents a month to $658.40 a month, depending on income. These amounts are in addition to Old Age Security payments.
In the past, such RRIF withdrawals were only counted as income for tax purposes, while a special provision allowed seniors to have GIS calculated based on their projected income, rather than last year’s income. That option was revoked in May without any public notice.
That means low-income seniors could find out in July, 2011 – when the next round of GIS payments are allotted – that their 2010 income was too high for them to qualify.
“People won’t find out until July 1, 2011, that they’ve just screwed themselves,” said Newfoundland Liberal MP Gerry Byrne, who raised the issue in the House of Commons Thursday. “They’re going to be shocked.”
Pam Hyatt, a 74-year-old actress in Toronto, said the changes seem unduly harsh.
“That’s really cruel,” said Ms. Hyatt, who qualified for the GIS last year after earning a taxable net income of $9,000. “If they’ve got an emergency like a funeral or an operation not covered by provincial insurance they should be able to pull some money out of their RRIFs in order to help themselves or their family.”
Many artists over 55 are, like Ms. Hyatt, living in straitened circumstances. New research by the Senior Artists’ Research Project found 35 per cent of elderly artists have annual incomes of less than $20,000.
Ms. Hyatt has worked for more than 52 years, and plans to continue working as long as she is able. “It’s a miracle I’m still here,” she said, laughing.
Number of seniors living in poverty soars nearly 25%
Why there should be an option to work for those facing Forced Retirement?
The article was published Nov. 24, 2010, The Globe and Mail
The number of seniors living in poverty spiked at the beginning of the financial meltdown, reversing a decades-long trend and threatening one of Canada’s most important social policy successes.
The number of seniors living below the low-income cutoff, Statistics Canada’s basic measure of poverty, jumped nearly 25 per cent between 2007 and 2008, to 250,000 from 204,000, according to figures released on Wednesday by Campaign 2000. It’s the largest increase among any group, and as the first cohort of baby boomers turns 65 next year, could place increased pressure on families supporting elderly parents.
Economists say women make up as much as 80 per cent of the increase in seniors poverty. Armine Yalnizyan, economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, said more women than men were living close to the poverty threshold before the financial crisis took hold in 2008, and, because their retirement savings tend to be smaller, were more likely to slip below the low-income cutoff. Men over 65 are also twice as likely as women over 65 to have a job. By January, 2009, there were 23,000 fewer women over 65 working than there were seven months earlier, while the number for men changed very little, Ms. Yalnizyan said.
“My guess is that the majority of women [who are still] working over 65 are not carrying on with their career, but trying to have a little more comfort in their lives. They were probably never too far above the poverty line, whatever line you pick. When those jobs are gone, more of them are struggling to make ends meet,” Ms. Yalnizyan said.
The rise in poverty among seniors poses particular problems for their adult children, who will be expected to bridge financial gaps for their parents while supporting their own families. This so-called “sandwich generation” is often caught with the twin pressures of having children in higher education and parents requiring additional care for failing health, according to Laurel Rothman, co-ordinator of the Campaign 2000 report card on child and family poverty.
She said the trend is particularly hard on new Canadians who have sponsored their parents to join them in Canada. Many of those parents have been able to work for only a few years in Canada before retirement, and so receive very little in Canadian pensions.
“In Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, ethno-racial newcomers are particularly a concern,” Ms. Rothman said. “We see it all the time at Family Service Toronto, people who come here that are sponsored [by their family members]. It may be someone who puts in five or 10 years of work [in Canada], but they don’t get full Canada Pension Plan. ... And their cost of living has gone up.”
The jump in poverty among seniors is unusual because Canada’s success in tackling this issue has been cited as perhaps its single most successful policy intervention. According to figures cited in a 2009 Conference Board report, Canada’s rate of seniors poverty was as high as 36.9 per cent in 1971. The government, in an effort to tackle the problem, had a few years earlier introduced the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the Canada Pension Plan. By 2007, the rate of poverty among seniors had plummeted to 4.9 per cent, before rising to 5.8 per cent in 2008.
The Canadian data are at odds with what’s happened in the United States, where the poverty rate of 9.7 per cent among seniors did not change between 2007 and 2008, despite the financial collapse. Ms. Yalnizyan said that could be explained by the time lag between the beginning of the economic upheaval in the United States and its eventual impact on Canada.
The Campaign 2000 report also says 9.1 per cent of Canadian children were living in poverty in 2008, down slightly from the year before, but nowhere near the goal of eliminating child poverty set by Parliament in 1989.
© The Globe and Mail
The article was published Nov. 24, 2010, The Globe and Mail
The number of seniors living in poverty spiked at the beginning of the financial meltdown, reversing a decades-long trend and threatening one of Canada’s most important social policy successes.
The number of seniors living below the low-income cutoff, Statistics Canada’s basic measure of poverty, jumped nearly 25 per cent between 2007 and 2008, to 250,000 from 204,000, according to figures released on Wednesday by Campaign 2000. It’s the largest increase among any group, and as the first cohort of baby boomers turns 65 next year, could place increased pressure on families supporting elderly parents.
Economists say women make up as much as 80 per cent of the increase in seniors poverty. Armine Yalnizyan, economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, said more women than men were living close to the poverty threshold before the financial crisis took hold in 2008, and, because their retirement savings tend to be smaller, were more likely to slip below the low-income cutoff. Men over 65 are also twice as likely as women over 65 to have a job. By January, 2009, there were 23,000 fewer women over 65 working than there were seven months earlier, while the number for men changed very little, Ms. Yalnizyan said.
“My guess is that the majority of women [who are still] working over 65 are not carrying on with their career, but trying to have a little more comfort in their lives. They were probably never too far above the poverty line, whatever line you pick. When those jobs are gone, more of them are struggling to make ends meet,” Ms. Yalnizyan said.
The rise in poverty among seniors poses particular problems for their adult children, who will be expected to bridge financial gaps for their parents while supporting their own families. This so-called “sandwich generation” is often caught with the twin pressures of having children in higher education and parents requiring additional care for failing health, according to Laurel Rothman, co-ordinator of the Campaign 2000 report card on child and family poverty.
She said the trend is particularly hard on new Canadians who have sponsored their parents to join them in Canada. Many of those parents have been able to work for only a few years in Canada before retirement, and so receive very little in Canadian pensions.
“In Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, ethno-racial newcomers are particularly a concern,” Ms. Rothman said. “We see it all the time at Family Service Toronto, people who come here that are sponsored [by their family members]. It may be someone who puts in five or 10 years of work [in Canada], but they don’t get full Canada Pension Plan. ... And their cost of living has gone up.”
The jump in poverty among seniors is unusual because Canada’s success in tackling this issue has been cited as perhaps its single most successful policy intervention. According to figures cited in a 2009 Conference Board report, Canada’s rate of seniors poverty was as high as 36.9 per cent in 1971. The government, in an effort to tackle the problem, had a few years earlier introduced the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the Canada Pension Plan. By 2007, the rate of poverty among seniors had plummeted to 4.9 per cent, before rising to 5.8 per cent in 2008.
The Canadian data are at odds with what’s happened in the United States, where the poverty rate of 9.7 per cent among seniors did not change between 2007 and 2008, despite the financial collapse. Ms. Yalnizyan said that could be explained by the time lag between the beginning of the economic upheaval in the United States and its eventual impact on Canada.
The Campaign 2000 report also says 9.1 per cent of Canadian children were living in poverty in 2008, down slightly from the year before, but nowhere near the goal of eliminating child poverty set by Parliament in 1989.
© The Globe and Mail
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)