Mandatory retirement policies in most federally regulated workplaces will be abolished if a recently introduced private members bill becomes law.

The bill - Bill C-481, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code (mandatory retirement age) - was introduced by Ms. Raymonde Folco, a Liberal Member of Parliament from Quebec on November 15, 2010.

It passed Second Reading in the House of Commons on December  6, 2010 and is being referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources at the committee stage of the parliamentary process. If it passes in committee, it will be referred to Third Reading and likely become law.

In the parliamentary debates held so far, Ms. Folco stated that her bill has three main objectives:

1. to repeal subsection 9(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act ("CHRA"). This amendment would ensure that unions and federal employees' organizations would no longer have the ability to exclude, expel or suspend an individual from membership in the organization because that individual has reached the normal age of retirement for individuals working in positions similar to the position of that individual. To clarify, this means within the same professional group, but not necessarily in the same organization.
2. to replace paragraphs 15(1)(b) and 15(1)(c) of the CHRA with the following for paragraph 15(1)(b): It will be possible to terminate the employment of an individual who has not reached the minimum age that applies to that employment by law or under regulations that may be made by the Governor in Council.
3. to repeal paragraph 235(2)(b) of the Canada Labour Code ("CLC"). By repealing this paragraph of the CLC, the legislator is ensuring that the employer will be obligated to pay severance pay to an employee who reaches an age at which the individual is entitled to receive a retirement pension from a complementary pension fund.

Private members' bills rarely gain any traction. However, based on the parliamentary
debates, it appears that this bill has the support of the Conservatives - albeit with some "modest" desired amendments - and the Bloc Quebecois.

The NDP's support is more uncertain, as they are in favour of better retirement income and benefits for older Canadians, rather than having more older Canadians working. As an NDP politician said at Second Reading: "Working longer is not nor will ever be a substitute for an adequate retirement income system."

The Conservatives have stated that their support of the bill is contingent on the following two amendments being adopted:

1. the regulation-making power in paragraph 15(1)(b) of the CHRA must be maintained. This would allow the federal government to still stipulate a mandatory retirement age for certain sectors or organizations, such as the Canadian Forces and some interprovincial and international transportation activities; and
2. a transition provision, or coming into force provision, must be included so as to allow employers and unions to adjust to the changes.

If passed, the bill would bring federal legislation in line with the Canadian provinces and territories, each of which have already amended their human rights legislations to remove blanket exceptions for mandatory retirement.

It would also align with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's 2009 ruling in Vilven v. Air Canada, 2009 CHRT 24, a case in which the Tribunal struck down Air Canada's mandatory retirement policy for pilots. This decision is currently the subject of a judicial review application.